User talk:Störm
Being bold
Hi. I've noticed that many of your recent AFD nominations could have been boldly redirected to the appropriate list of cricketers. Is there any reason why you are not doing this? Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, because anyone in future will just come and remove my redirect. At least, in AfD, they can't do that. Störm (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your thinking but there is consensus, and it seems agreement from most of the cricket project, that articles on players with very few appearances (possibly under 10, but certainly under 5) and no evidence of significant coverage (e.g. only having CA/CI sourcing) can be redirected. Such redirects would therefore be uncontroversial, so per BEFORE, please redirect first and then list at AFD only if the redirect gets reverted without evidence of sources showing significant coverage. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not seeking a redirect in the AfD. There is nothing in these which we are saving. Delete and redirect is a better option. Störm (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- That maybe true, but the AFD process takes up an awful lot of people's time (I probably spend at least 15-20 minutes per AFD; some will spend more, many less) which would be saved by a simple redirect. "Delete and redirect" is an extremely rare AFD result, and redirect is far more common than delete where a suitable target exists. The more AFDs there are like this, the less likely it becomes that people continue to participate fully. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am too busy these days with my job work. Once I will be free, I will start RfC to remove domestic cricketers clause from WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC community can re-add after calibrating it to WP:GNG). Can you please guide me, which is the right venue (village pump or NSPORTS talk) to have a broader discussion (I will show results of AfD to prove that WP:NCRIC is broken)? Störm (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- There are open discussions at both CRIC and NSPORTS, which you may wish to contribute to. I'd suggest letting those conclude and leaving it a few months before starting anything further. NSPORTS would probably be the best venue for your proposed RFC, but I'd recommend discussion first. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- NSPORTS is not properly initiated and that one will conclude soon. On WP:CRIC, there is no RfC on WP:NCRIC (just general discussion which is going on since long). I will wait two or three weeks. Störm (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wjemather FWIW I've suggested creating a list of notable FC/List-A/T20 domestic competitions where there is enough presumed coverage to pass GNG which would likely include competitions such as the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and franchise competitions but remove the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy and Premier Trophy (Sri Lanka) which are being shown at AfD to not presume notability well. I'm not sure we need another formal RfC at this stage on removing it entirely as it would be unlikely to gain consensus on the project as the view seems to be it needs improving not removing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Add Plunket Shield too along with IPL, PSL, and BBL. We also need to add 'multiple matches' in the guideline. One match wonder bios are simply not notable unless they pass WP:GNG. Recent seasons of Quaid-e-Azam trophy are notable because of limited teams. Störm (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah those were just examples, I was going to ask what people thought of the idea on the cricket WikiProject but i'll give it a bit of time for a few discussions to pass. There could be some dates added as well such as County Championship (from 1945-onwards) as an example. In terms of numbers of matches it probably should be kept to one for presumed notability to match all other sports SNGs, but with a confirmed list of competitions deemed presumed notable (similar to the one used in football) then it should mean that someone who played one match would have coverage, if you see what I mean. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, Rugbyfan22, it will be fine to me. We need to add only those tournaments/seasons for which we are sure (not all tournaments/seasons). We'll keep adding tournaments/seasons for which we will find coverage. This will fine-tune the SNG to GNG. Störm (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to copy the list over to my sandbox and start removing what I feel as non-presumed notable leagues, and then at some point post it on the WikiProject to get views on firstly if people would accept that change, and secondly what changes need to be made to my update (add/remove leagues, change date from when presumed notability begins). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, please do. Calling for the removal of any clause is the last resort and I'll be happy if this works out. WP:CRIC members need to be flexible (not adamant in their positions) so we can agree on a consensus. Störm (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'll work it it over the next few days, I understand why they're not flexible as it's one of the most complete project I've come across and they're proud of their creations, but hopefully a suitable solution that improves NCRIC comes about. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, please do. Calling for the removal of any clause is the last resort and I'll be happy if this works out. WP:CRIC members need to be flexible (not adamant in their positions) so we can agree on a consensus. Störm (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to copy the list over to my sandbox and start removing what I feel as non-presumed notable leagues, and then at some point post it on the WikiProject to get views on firstly if people would accept that change, and secondly what changes need to be made to my update (add/remove leagues, change date from when presumed notability begins). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, Rugbyfan22, it will be fine to me. We need to add only those tournaments/seasons for which we are sure (not all tournaments/seasons). We'll keep adding tournaments/seasons for which we will find coverage. This will fine-tune the SNG to GNG. Störm (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah those were just examples, I was going to ask what people thought of the idea on the cricket WikiProject but i'll give it a bit of time for a few discussions to pass. There could be some dates added as well such as County Championship (from 1945-onwards) as an example. In terms of numbers of matches it probably should be kept to one for presumed notability to match all other sports SNGs, but with a confirmed list of competitions deemed presumed notable (similar to the one used in football) then it should mean that someone who played one match would have coverage, if you see what I mean. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Add Plunket Shield too along with IPL, PSL, and BBL. We also need to add 'multiple matches' in the guideline. One match wonder bios are simply not notable unless they pass WP:GNG. Recent seasons of Quaid-e-Azam trophy are notable because of limited teams. Störm (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wjemather FWIW I've suggested creating a list of notable FC/List-A/T20 domestic competitions where there is enough presumed coverage to pass GNG which would likely include competitions such as the County Championship, Sheffield Shield and franchise competitions but remove the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy and Premier Trophy (Sri Lanka) which are being shown at AfD to not presume notability well. I'm not sure we need another formal RfC at this stage on removing it entirely as it would be unlikely to gain consensus on the project as the view seems to be it needs improving not removing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- NSPORTS is not properly initiated and that one will conclude soon. On WP:CRIC, there is no RfC on WP:NCRIC (just general discussion which is going on since long). I will wait two or three weeks. Störm (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- There are open discussions at both CRIC and NSPORTS, which you may wish to contribute to. I'd suggest letting those conclude and leaving it a few months before starting anything further. NSPORTS would probably be the best venue for your proposed RFC, but I'd recommend discussion first. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am too busy these days with my job work. Once I will be free, I will start RfC to remove domestic cricketers clause from WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC community can re-add after calibrating it to WP:GNG). Can you please guide me, which is the right venue (village pump or NSPORTS talk) to have a broader discussion (I will show results of AfD to prove that WP:NCRIC is broken)? Störm (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- That maybe true, but the AFD process takes up an awful lot of people's time (I probably spend at least 15-20 minutes per AFD; some will spend more, many less) which would be saved by a simple redirect. "Delete and redirect" is an extremely rare AFD result, and redirect is far more common than delete where a suitable target exists. The more AFDs there are like this, the less likely it becomes that people continue to participate fully. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am not seeking a redirect in the AfD. There is nothing in these which we are saving. Delete and redirect is a better option. Störm (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your thinking but there is consensus, and it seems agreement from most of the cricket project, that articles on players with very few appearances (possibly under 10, but certainly under 5) and no evidence of significant coverage (e.g. only having CA/CI sourcing) can be redirected. Such redirects would therefore be uncontroversial, so per BEFORE, please redirect first and then list at AFD only if the redirect gets reverted without evidence of sources showing significant coverage. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
If you persist in sending articles to AFD that could clearly have been boldly redirected (which is the almost inevitable result from these AFDs – it seems very unlikely they will be deleted), people may start to find it disruptive and it could result in another visit to ANI. Please reconsider your position on this. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your warning. Sure, do the process if you feel necessary, I've no issue with that. I'm strictly abiding with what community decided and if community decides what I do is of no worth then I'll leave the place voluntarily. Störm (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point Wjemather is making, of the recent AfDs none of them needed to be at AfD, they could have just been redirected as there would have been no complaints on them being redirected. AfD should be for contentious players (where there might be coverage or they might be notable) or where there's no clear redirect (list page doesn't exist or they've played for multiple teams). Some of the redirects may be undone but I doubt it will be many as the recent AfDs have pretty much be clear cut cases (with the exception of Gerald Trump) and if this is the case then send them to AfD. In many cases also keeping the page history can be helpful to stop the recreation of new pages which have been turned into redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- In current formulation they all pass WP:NCRIC and if I will redirect then surely someone will revert it anyway (in my opinion it is wastage of time). Störm (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's unlikely given even the majority of creators views on the WikiProject now, certainly over these minor counties players. Obviously it's your decision on whether to keep listing them, but for all the recent ones there's been a redirect that would have been found in a WP:BEFORE search. It takes up a lot of mine and Wjemather's time commentating on these nominations, along with the other editors who are involved, and for clear redirects like this it is beginning to feel like a waste of my time, and I'm sure Wjemather feels similar if not as strongly. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is upto you if you want to participate or not (there is no compulsion). Although in my view they all should be deleted, but I will shift my focus on cricketers where delete result is obvious. Störm (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- But the AFDs (and ATD) demonstrate that the community would rather avoid deletion if any other option exists. It seems needless to keep pressing against this consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is upto you if you want to participate or not (there is no compulsion). Although in my view they all should be deleted, but I will shift my focus on cricketers where delete result is obvious. Störm (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As mentioned earlier; the burden in on anyone reverting such redirects to demonstrate GNG has been met. If they fail to do so, then the community view would likely be that is they are the ones causing disruption. Indeed, it does get frustrating to process a dozen nominations without a sniff of finding anything interesting, when they could all have been redirected. Of course, the positive is that we now have a couple of fleshed out articles we wouldn't otherwise have had, but we wouldn't have lost anything had they been redirected because that content did not exist at the time. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's unlikely given even the majority of creators views on the WikiProject now, certainly over these minor counties players. Obviously it's your decision on whether to keep listing them, but for all the recent ones there's been a redirect that would have been found in a WP:BEFORE search. It takes up a lot of mine and Wjemather's time commentating on these nominations, along with the other editors who are involved, and for clear redirects like this it is beginning to feel like a waste of my time, and I'm sure Wjemather feels similar if not as strongly. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- In current formulation they all pass WP:NCRIC and if I will redirect then surely someone will revert it anyway (in my opinion it is wastage of time). Störm (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point Wjemather is making, of the recent AfDs none of them needed to be at AfD, they could have just been redirected as there would have been no complaints on them being redirected. AfD should be for contentious players (where there might be coverage or they might be notable) or where there's no clear redirect (list page doesn't exist or they've played for multiple teams). Some of the redirects may be undone but I doubt it will be many as the recent AfDs have pretty much be clear cut cases (with the exception of Gerald Trump) and if this is the case then send them to AfD. In many cases also keeping the page history can be helpful to stop the recreation of new pages which have been turned into redirects. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your warning. Sure, do the process if you feel necessary, I've no issue with that. I'm strictly abiding with what community decided and if community decides what I do is of no worth then I'll leave the place voluntarily. Störm (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Störm, can there be a compromise / test? For example, the next 10 articles you would have started an AfD for, instead just redirect them. If the redirects aren't challenged and remain in place, fine, everybody happy. If they get reverted, start an AfD for them, with an indication that a redirect was tried but reverted. If these all (or 9 out or ten or so) end in redirect, then this discussion can move to the page of the one reverting the redirects, asking them to stop doing this. Fram (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure Fram. I have great respect for what you do and I am willing to try it. What about bundling them in one AfD where redirect or delete is obvious? Störm (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Bundling them is even worse, they'll likely end up all in procedural keep and you'll be told to relist them separately as you can't verify GNG well in bundles like this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is no harm in trying it once. Let's see how it goes. Störm (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it would even be allowed under WP:BUNDLE as the articles although similar in template include different information. Yes they may have had similar cricketing careers, but that doesn't mean they'll have the same coverage. I can tell you now that if you bundle some I'll just vote procedural keep, these should be split so we can better verify GNG on them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- There is no harm in trying it once. Let's see how it goes. Störm (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There a list articles in place for the majority of sides in some form or another (some more detailed than others), with the plan to improve existing articles so they're more detailed and to create the missing lists. None of the articles at AfD will likely be completely deleted (some may be deleted, but then a redirect created) as they are alternatives to deletion as listed at WP:ATD. Of the 30 AfDs closed in the past 7 days only 2 have been deleted completely (i.e. not redirected or deleted and no redirect set up). I agree with Fram's proposal, try it out as you have done with moving pages, and see what happens. Some creators may revert them yes, but if they look like clear redirects then we can discuss it with the creator. Save AfD for the contentious ones or where there seems to be no potential redirect available. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Bundling them is even worse, they'll likely end up all in procedural keep and you'll be told to relist them separately as you can't verify GNG well in bundles like this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again. I thought you were going to try redirecting to lists first? I notice a number of AFDs over the past few days where this could have been done. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. I am not nominating players with single-appearance anymore (maybe I've nom one or two). Let's see what result these AfDs bring then I'll adjust my strategy. Störm (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to redirect more instead of AfD. I've moved Rahim Karim from Nottinghamshire Cricket Board to List of Nottinghamshire Cricket Board List A players as it's a better redirect. If lists exist that where they should be redirected really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for it. Störm (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Um...
I noticed you've recreated Ramzi Najjar. According to google he was born in roughly 1978. The first source you used to source his college education was published in 1988, making him somewhere between 9-11. How is this possible? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Thanks. Removed the source. Tagged. Störm (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't really address the other issues, though. The other sources are, at best, dubious if not outright unreliable and not coverage. Do you plan to add more? How does one make such an oversight? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Maybe I was mistaking two different persons? Störm (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Quite odd considering this guy isn't notable and your second, now first source in no way supports the content you've tied it to. I'm not going to leave you a BLP ds alert, but just remind you because this type of editing of a BLP is pretty unacceptable. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Thanks for correcting me. He is certainly not notable. I've requested deletion. Störm (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please be more cautious going forward, other sources you used are about an entirely different person. Please consider my previous message an actual ds alert. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well noted. Störm (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Though this brings up another question, hopefully you can answer. Given the sources you used to support statements did not actually support them and as far as I can tell, neither did any of the others, where did you get that information from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I found sources, but mixed two different persons. Störm (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Literally, all but the Amazon book sources were about another person. So, again, where did this content come from? I'm concerned because you also have Autopatrolled and this is a pretty egregious "mistake". BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't look at the birth year and mixed two people. I will learn from this and will not repeat it again. Thanks. Störm (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where you got this information from though, it wasn't in any of the sources. So this doesn't adequately answer my question, since it's not information about the subject who the sources were actually about, so it had to come from somewhere. My question is where? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't look at the birth year and mixed two people. I will learn from this and will not repeat it again. Thanks. Störm (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Literally, all but the Amazon book sources were about another person. So, again, where did this content come from? I'm concerned because you also have Autopatrolled and this is a pretty egregious "mistake". BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I found sources, but mixed two different persons. Störm (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Though this brings up another question, hopefully you can answer. Given the sources you used to support statements did not actually support them and as far as I can tell, neither did any of the others, where did you get that information from? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Well noted. Störm (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Please be more cautious going forward, other sources you used are about an entirely different person. Please consider my previous message an actual ds alert. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Thanks for correcting me. He is certainly not notable. I've requested deletion. Störm (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Quite odd considering this guy isn't notable and your second, now first source in no way supports the content you've tied it to. I'm not going to leave you a BLP ds alert, but just remind you because this type of editing of a BLP is pretty unacceptable. BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Praxidicae Maybe I was mistaking two different persons? Störm (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- That doesn't really address the other issues, though. The other sources are, at best, dubious if not outright unreliable and not coverage. Do you plan to add more? How does one make such an oversight? BEACHIDICAE🌊 19:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.