QBWiki talk:Notability guidelines

This is a placeholder page for a discussion of potential notability guidelines that will govern all articles in the QBWiki. Suggestions welcome.

Some potential guiding ideas (feedback welcome):

- All schools, active and inactive, that competed in at least one non-league quizbowl tournament (i.e. not a league, but rather a tournament) may have a wiki entry detailing their results. Each school page should ideally have whether or not the school is still active and ideally up-to-date contact information.

- Individual person pages must have either won a major national quizbowl award (Carper Award, Cooper Award, etc.), finished in the top 5 individually at a national championship tournament, and/or have otherwise contributed significantly to the game of quizbowl (I know the last part is a bit murkier, so suggestions welcome). Individual pages should focus on quizbowl-related activities as much as possible and provide some sense of what else the player might have done that simple statistics cannot capture (notable games or buzzes, team-building work, circuit-building work, etc.)

- Categories should be fairly small and help readers navigate; the current "Active Player in X Year" categories are too broad to be workable, IMHO.

Other ideas welcome. -Chris Chiego

As I suggested in the forums thread, I think that notability standards for individual people should be significantly looser. For instance, I think that active participation in the community, work on any writing or editing projects, or having any other things of note (an attributed story, say) should be sufficient for an article. This is likely still sufficient to prevent a fair bit of the clutter that would come from making an article for literally everyone who has played.

When people stumble across a player they don't know much about, I would like their first instinct to be to go to the wiki and look up a quick synopsis of their career and perhaps an amusing anecdote or two.

Kevin Wang (talk)

It would help to have more amusing anecdotes to include for many of these pages; right now, even some of the more-extensive individual player pages lack that kind of qualitative detail. Or at least, basic updates since 2013.

At this point, I'm going to start going through and flagging individual player pages that have no other links to anything else in the wiki except for their teams (i.e. nothing but "X is a player on Y college team. X played at Z high school." from 2012 or something). This will be a new category called "Deletion" so people can easily see the pages I'm marking all at once; see. I won't delete anything yet, but I want to start doing some clean-up here.

Should members of championship teams with nothing else on their page be kept or not? Have run into a few of those as well. It seems that if the info is nothing more than what one could find looking at tournament results/statistics, that's probably not worth keeping, but I could be convinced otherwise. I think it makes sense to keep people who were named all-world team members, though it would be ideal to add more too for those.

I'm running into many pages that have nothing more than some combination of "X is a player on Y team" and/or "X is an officer for Y team" and/or "X had 35 PPG at Tournament A." Unless there's at least some kind of additional info like a specific story, a sentence on their personality, or even a picture etc., I'm putting them in the deletion category.

-Chris Chiego

Given that there's no way for us to go back and find out information about these people, I suppose that the only two options are let these stubs continue as stubs or delete them. I personally have little issue with existing stubs being grandfathered in (obviously you differ), but I think having one additional piece of information is a reasonable bar to use for making new pages and preventing any future stubs.

I think members of championship teams should have articles - there are fewer of them than HSQB Rank first team members, but more or less all of those have pages (up to around 2018, at least).

Kevin Wang (talk)

I think that the approach Chris is taking now is the appropriate approach and from a practical standpoint is the only way to do this. The pages that should get deleted are the pages that have existed for over a year, don't say anything worthwhile, and are for people who haven't done anything memorable. As in, the Chad Kubicek page sucks, but we should keep it because he is Chad Kubicek--hopefully somebody will add to it at some point. If somebody we've never heard of has a page that gives us no information and no reason to want more information, then let's delete it. If we want to be careful, we can use Harry White's database to see if it is a person who had a long career. We can also be generous if we know or the article states that the person was a significant contributor in one way or another.

David Reinstein (talk)

Yeah I'm going to search the stats to see if the person did more and if I come across people in old documents or discussions who seemed to do more for the game I'll certainly keep those. But if it's like one member of a 4-6 HSNCT team who never played in college, I don't think that really meets the criteria. Will definitely keep members of national championship teams and HSQB Rank All-World Teams. See the pages in the Deletion category and feel free to take individual pages out if there's something I'm missing.

-Chris Chiego

Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with Kevin that head editing a set, or subject-editing more than one set, should be grounds for notability.

-Alex Damisch

Sure I've gone through and flagged in the Talk section some people like Billy Busse whose pages are stubs but who definitely have done a ton of editing work. If some people from ACF wanted to go through and note the editorships for various people who've edited for ACF in the past, that would be awesome.

-Chris Chiego