Talk:Open Snipe World Championship

Sailing Low‑importance

	Open Snipe World Championship is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Unassessed Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article[edit]

This article is almost four years old. From the start it has been a very long list of mostly non-notable people with almost no references to back it up. It needs to be properly referenced or else stubbed to what is actually sourced, sent for deletion or moved to drafts until it meets the standards to be in mainspace. Unless anyone has refs that can be quickly added, I advocate for moving it to drafts. Please see the policies at WP:V and especially Jimmy Wales quote there I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, draftification would be a reasonable way to handle this and and a couple of similar articles. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note here. If you want provide links to other articles then I could have a look at those too, unless you would like to move them to drafts yourself? - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lacking any further discussion I'll move the article to drafts. - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think questioning World Championships for Olympic sports potentially not meeting notability criteria is wrong. Lots of wikipedia policies back this up. The one thing I would say is that this page is made irrelevant by having the page for Commodore Hub E. Isaacks and O'Leary Trophies these should be combined. In regard to referencing while perfect referencing is ideal it not realistic. The open editorial nature of wikipedia makes this the case I have had a number of pages completed by the sailors themselves filling in crews etc. What I think is important is not to aggressively remove unsourced data when someone has clearly gone to the effort of collating and formatting this kind of data. Have you any examples of the none referenced data actually being wrong it hardly the type of item that would be manipulated? In regards to the snipe I am staying out of this one. Yachty4000 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to drafts because it is four years old and has no valid refs cited at all. It was moved there to avoid it just being sent for deletion as "no refs cited", but was moved back to mainspace by another editor. Unless someone can find refs for it then an editor will probably send it for deletion at some point. It doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it might be a notable topic or not, without references it is not shown to be notable.

It is also impossible to tell if any of the information is wrong, because without refs, there is no way to verify it. Having all facts verifiable is a hard policy requirement on Wikipedia and so is removing anything that is not sourced and thus cannot be verified. Removing four year old unsourced claims is hardly "aggressively removing". So far no one has removed anything, although it would be entirely justified and in fact is required, under policies see WP:V.

Just to avoid confusion here, too, there are two types of refs needed if this article is to avoid deletion. First it needs refs that show who won which years, for each year listed to comply with WP:V. These can be race results, which are basically first party refs (ie provided by the race organizers). But first party refs are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not establish that the overall topic is notable. To do that the article has to comply with WP:GNG and WP:EVENT which require multiple independent third party refs. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also applies as that explains: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be: ... Excessive listings of unexplained statistics..... That means at least two (multiple) refs like magazine reports or similar that deal with the events' significance and not just report race results without comment. Right now there are dozens of similar lists of sailing race results on en.wikipedia that lack these third party refs. I know you have put a lot of work into creating them, but I am concerned that they all fail to meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and that at some point some editor will just put them all up for mass deletion at WP:AFD. Without proper referencing they are not going to survive that process. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key person to ask about this particular article is the editor who started it in 2019: @Banderas: where did all this article data come from? Do you have refs that can be cited? - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the results of the championships are linked here. Medallist are listed in this article, as in all articles of the Category:Medalists in sailing, while winners are included at the article about the championship (Commodore Hub E. Isaacks and O'Leary Trophies). --Banderas (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding here. We have actually added information on "who won and when" from snipe.org archives, so that much is covered. Those are WP:PRIMARY refs however, so what the article needs is third party, independent refs that show that the subject itself is notable, as per WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Any idea on where to find those? - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some referencing is needed but you can quickly find these for example the top level Snipe World Championships links to [[1]] in addition the duplicate pages to this Commodore Hub E. Isaacks and O'Leary Trophies has some references. I have to say these are know where as comprehensive as I have been doing. I think wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia it preserves history. I question more whether it is actually like sailboat data like a lot of your articles.

In regards to this article specifically as I said it should be combined Commodore Hub E. Isaacks and O'Leary Trophies I suggest the trophy by name has very little value compared to the title Open Snipe World Champion so I would go with Open Snipe World Championship incorporate the bits about the trophy into it is a nice touch provided it doesn't overtake the article. Yachty4000 (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the sailboat articles I have started and this article is that they have multiple independent third party refs that show notability, which is, I should point out, required for an article to be retained on Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding that WP:PRIMARY ref. I have added it to this article, although it does not cover 2015-22. We still need some sort of ref to meet notability WP:GNG and WP:EVENT requirements, though.

As far as merging this article into Commodore Hub E. Isaacks and O'Leary Trophies, I think that would be a good idea, since they really are a single topic. That said, that article has a list of winners in it which is also not referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

User:Yachty4000 - you need to figure out how to comply with the copyright requirements outlined in this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that is dealt with by the request to delete one of the two page by merging the content? I accept you will never now be able to see the source by looking at the change log now. But this is exactly the same as a lot of my additions were moved into templates. Yachty4000 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if one article later gets merged, it has to be properly attributed for copyright reasons. It is all explained in that link I provided above. I would suggest you revert the text copied and start again with proper attribution this time. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]