Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Boxing fights[edit]

Hi! I'd like to establish some parameters as far as notability for boxing fights. As there have been tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of boxing fights, including world championship ones, parameters should be established as to which boxing fights should have an independent article apart from being mentioned in the respective boxers' articles and which should not.

The article criteria should be:

  • Main or co-main events on Pay Per View
    • HBO
    • Showtime
    • Or another country's equivalent to those American channels
  • Fights with a proven historical context or impact (therefore Wilfredo Gomez versus Carlos Zarate, Gomez vs. Salvador Sanchez, The no Mas Fight and Jack Dempsey vs. Georges Carpentier, for example, would qualify)
    • Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion
  • Major organization's (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO) unification bouts
  • Ring Magazine fight of the year award winning fights
    • Knockout of the year
    • Upset of the year
    • fight of the decade
  • Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules or where a major scandal took place

should qualify as notable enough or as notability establishing standards for boxing fights as events notable enough to have their articles on wikipedia.

What do you all think?

Thanks and God bless! Antonio Fight me! Martin (loser talk) 07:50, August 3, 2020 (UTC)

  1. PPV Events - Is that a high enough standard? Since HBO is out of boxing we could add ESPN PPV (They have Wilder vs. Fury II & III). Triller?
  2. Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion - I think that standard is too low. There are so many belts out there, leave that to the boxer's article.
  3. Unification bouts - A low standard, but maybe.
  4. Ring Magazine annual award winners - Yes. Do any other outlets have similar annual awards that deserve the same recognition?
  5. Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules - Do you have an example?--Jahalive (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Election question(s)[edit]

I hope this is the right place for these questions regarding 2022 Missouri State Auditor election which I brought to AfD for discussion, originally per CRYSTAL. I'm not a regular at AfD, and I want to be sure I am doing these things properly for future reference. The article seems, to me, to suffer from TOO SOON and CRYSTAL as only one candidate (the incumbent) is even announced. Everything else seems to be opinion pieces about who else may run. There may also be a notability problem with the particular state office article, as other states don't seem to have articles about their office at this level.

My questions:

1) Where is the cut-off for state-wide stand-alone articles on elections to offices, and how is that determined? (Example: Governor, Lt. Gov., Comptroller, State Auditor, State Representative, etc.);
2) Should I have used a different reason, or additional reasons, in the nomination than just CRYSTAL?;
3) Should I not have wasted everyone's time with this nomination and just edited the thing to cut it down to a small stub by removing speculative candidates?
4) Because the two prior elections to this office in this state have articles also, should they have been nominated also, or is that a clue that I shouldn't have brought this one to AfD in the first place?

Looking for some guidance and/or tips here. Thanks in advance. GenQuest "scribble" 13:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 9#Wikipedia:DOGBITESMAN until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual local elections[edit]

During NPP work I took an example of a routine local election with a "stats only" type article, went into extra detail at the AFD nomination and asked for a thorough review with the thought that the result might help provide guidance on these. Input is requested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election North8000 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse RfC[edit]

How should the notability of solar eclipses and lunar eclipses be decided? Ovinus (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 1: Status quo; stand-alone pages for every eclipse in the 20th and 21st centuries, and including miscellaneous ones between the 16th and 22nd centuries AD.
  • Option 2: Establish a range for which eclipses outside that range must meet the GNG, while eclipses within that range are considered notable.

There is also the question of the redirect target:

  • Option C: Delete non-notable eclipses.

Discussion[edit]

I am opening this RfC after a back-and-forth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191. For the astronomically uninitiated: solar and lunar eclipses occur in predictable cycles known as Saros cycles or series, which each contain a set of about 70 eclipses in regular intervals. With technological and scientific advances in the last few centuries, solar and lunar eclipses may be predicted millennia into the future and with sub-second accuracy. In other words, that these eclipses will happen as described is not under question. Potentially applicable policies include WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:CRYSTAL. There are other potential criteria that I haven't put in the options, because there's already quite a few, but perhaps a discussion will come up with good ones. Also note that per WP:LOCALCON, it's possible that Options 1 through 3 are not immediately applicable without a wider discussion. Ovinus (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 4 and B and when B isn't possible fall back to A. We do not need a special, new standard for this subject. Existing policy and process is just fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not certain what the distinction between 3 and 4 would be in practice. The older I get, the less fond I find myself of arguments that seem to boil down to arranging acronyms on an imaginary org chart. ("GEOLAND supersedes the GNG!" "No, GEOLAND presumes and clarifies the GNG." "But that would put us in tension with NASTRO, and under the precedent of NBELGIANWAFFLE...") Questions of what makes for a good encyclopedia tend to get lost in the muddle. Is there an example of a case where we really would act differently under option 3 versus option 4? XOR'easter (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, where should Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_1560 go? I agree that it is painful to have a mess of guidelines as we do, and I’m not proposing WP:NECLIPSE here—only how we should deal with the eclipse articles—but as you noted it’s good to get a broader consensus before sending hundreds of articles to AfD. That’s what the discussion is for I’d just like GNG for eclipse articles, period, and believe that would ultimately be best for the encyclopedia to combine the pages. If we can get consensus for that through an RfC then it can be implemented without hassle on individual AfD pages. But perhaps I’m going in the wrong direction. Ovinus (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the example that seemed ambiguous; it seems to me that Solar eclipse of August 21, 1560 would potentially be accepted under either option. Sources exist for its influence on Brahe [1][2], for instance. People at AfD might argue over "significant coverage", like we always do (i.e., in the way that we always pretend our subjective judgments are obvious truths). I don't think you're going in the wrong direction; I'm just trying to get a handle on the difference between the options.
I think that in the cases where we do redirect (whatever those cases end up being), listing by century is more reader-friendly than listing by Saros. XOR'easter (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 and B. Eclipses happen and the list of those is well-documented, so any standalone eclipse should show more coverage from the GNG standpoint of why that eclispe is different or the like. --Masem (t) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 and B and when B isn't possible fall back to A. I generally agree with most of the comments. I do not think we need be too obsessive in assigning notability standards. If someone thinks that a particular eclipse is worth special attention because it happened on some saint's day for the third time, big deal! It might interest someone and won't bring down the house. Better that than miss something of general interest because of some obsessive regulation.JonRichfield (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)&oldid=1096447969"