This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Notability is a fundamental element for inclusion. What I see here is is a pretty nice schematic of a turn of events, a tournament, that is the second of nine. The one source I found that seemed to include this was blacklisted. I included this in the Category:Living people since this is a BLP related article. I would normally just submit this for BLP PROD but hopefully someone can produce sourcing.
The event is clearly notable. A ranking event, the highest level of snooker tournament in the world. I'm currently watching the final of the latest ranking event live on TV. This event was broadcast live on the BBC and received extensive coverage in the national press and elsewhere. Shouldn't be difficult to find some sources since you seem to be interested. Nigej (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Otr500, do you know what a BLP is? This is not such an article. This event was a world ranking tournament, which as Nigej says is the highest level of tournament in the world. The article does need sourcing, but that would be very easy to do. Why did you add this to living people? This isn't a person. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some cites to show how notable this is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Nigej: I somehow wasn't as clear as I had intended. Being unsourced my concern was actually more with the elaborate but cool layout and if there was possible original research involved, even though a lack of sourcing was an issue. Lately it seems I get a lot of "why don't you add references yourself". While it is encouraged (I did try but the source was on a blacklist) it is not an absolute "rule" nor a means to provide an exclusion of any tags for failure to comply. There is also no "rules" against improving Wikipedia by assistance even if not orthodox. At my best (and I have played the game) I cannot be as thorough as someone more subject knowledgeable. Removing a valid tag even in good faith, without clear justification, can be seen in a dim light. I guess we can try to claim it as BRD but I am not sure that is valid. I can cite a page full of "justifications", but the necessity has been rendered moot by subsequent improvements.
The fact that I was able to find a reference in a couple of minutes seems to indicate that you didn't put too much effort in. And the fact that you've spent ages composing the post here clearly shows that you're much more interested in discussing the intricacies of Wikipedia policy than you are in actually improving the encyclopedia. Personally I regard the policy of adding random hatnotes into article and then congratulating yourself that you've somehow caused an improvement in Wikipedia when someone else improves the article as decidedly odd. Nigej (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ Lee Vilenski: The statement: "do you know what a BLP is?" can be perceived as sarcasm or an actual meaning that you perceive that I have done something through ignorance.
As for the template that was added and reverted: My editorial worth might be questionable but I tend to take policies and guidelines into account when making decisions. I will defer to simple English so am placing the template here to provide evidence justifying the rationale for inclusion:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Please note: The first sentence "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons.". If the wording does not mean that an article that contains the names of many living people does not fall under the criterion then maybe there needs to be a discussion as to exactly what the meaning is. It does include the page in the category:Biography articles of living people. Maybe there needs to be a new sub-category because the wording of the template, rationale for inclusion, and use, seems to be pretty clear. Comments can sometimes mask or hide emotions. I am not trying to be sarcastic but considering the wording of your comments I am perplexed, even dumb-founded, that my ability to determine a BLP is even considered.
If your position is that the article "currently" only contains names, and that it will never be expanded past the "current" state, it might be an argument for exclusion as an exception (maybe per WP:BLPGROUP), and not one that the clear use of the names of living people does not make it a BLP related article. While not a BLP it is considered an event with the names of a "group" of related living people. The revised WMF resolution even states, Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles....
Thanks for your in depth answer. If we started putting BLP tags on articles that contained people who were living, that would be over 90% of articles. I really don't think that was ever the intention of this tag. Apologies for coming across as sarcastic, it did seem a little odd to say the event wasn't notable, and that it was to be judged under the BLP rules. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. While Wikipedia articles like this might be within the realms of "personal data" as defined by the data protection act, WP:BLP is clearly more worried about something more serious: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Nigej (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons begins with "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." and the "Applicability of the policy" section adds "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.". Considering these things (my ability to ascertain what is or is not considered a BLP aside) what seems to be valid, especially as the template is worded, appears to give clear reasoning.
This is arguably a list class article but regardless the content includes a not so arguably large "embedded list" that includes the names of living people. There is no doubt the area needs work. The article redundantly links to Tony Chappel four times (three side-by-side) yet when one follows the link there seems to be an obvious lack of a connection. That article also has the black-listed link so editing it would require ignoring the warning or removing the reference.
Added references and 16 edits (not including two bots) have happened since I took notice. An end result is that through maintenance efforts article improvements have clearly resulted. For whatever controversies this seems to attract it also seems that improvements to Wikipedia being a result is a good goal. This seems to indicate that any possible ignorance I may display might be actually unimportant.
However and for the record, the unsung hero that deserves a barnstar, would be Lee Vilenski. Not only has the issue of an unsourced article been resolved but a 2017 maintenance backlog has been shortened. While I was trying to add "one" reference the improvements resulted in eight references and this seems like a double improvement. WOW! Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference - and the reason this wouldn't be a list article, is that we could expand the prose a bit. Please see some of the articles I have done this for (such as this years' version of this event 2019 World Open (snooker), the 1985 World Snooker Championship, or the 1979 UK Championship.) List articles are generally articles on things that are defining, that the only thing that the article covers is the items in the list, and that they WP:BROADly cover the full range of the subject.
As a project, we have literally thousands of unsourced, or poorly sourced articles, but almost all of them have plenty of sources out there, so aren't suitable for deletion. Cuetracker is blacklisted on wikipedia due to it not being reliable for facts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lee Vilenski and Nigej, thanks for your comments. I have been active a long time in maintenance. I may randomly pick an area like Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2017 and check some (or all) out. I am more concerned with unsourced articles (especially BLP or related) and those that seem to be unnecessary stub forks (like the many football season ones that are just score card listings or seasonal content titled under a team name. Even if there is sourcing a "presumption" of notability does not actually guarantee inclusion.
As for the template, I am giving no arguments with the removal. It absolutely does fall under the "realm" of the intended wording, "even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons", but I do agree with both mainly because the use does place it in a category I also feel not exactly appropriate. It is certainly less needful within active projects. Lacking a relevant sub-category, even if it contains a small amount of biographical content on people who are living, it is still only "related". It becomes more relevant in less patrolled projects, where there is vandalism, or where the stubs are not useful just adding to the size of Wikipedia while not helping at all with the Reliability of Wikipedia.
As for the "notability", it has become clear the subject is notable. A fact that "literally thousands of unsourced, or poorly sourced articles" does mean there is room for improvements though, and it is a positive when a solution is presented. Although I do agree that the state of an article is not an actual indication of notability sometimes one person's search does not reveal the necessary or needed source someone else may be able to locate. This becomes even more relevant when there are "career tags" indicating an issue. I face a lot of flak sometimes but have also received a barnstar concerning Frederick Alexander (cricketer) (left a message on the project talk page) so sometimes things just fly under the radar and needs some attention called that "maintenance" is needed. Also, because an article or category of articles has issues it does not mean some of us should not perform such maintenance, or should stop what we are doing to try to "get familiar" with a subject when others would be far better equipped by knowledge and interest.
@ Nigej: You may not like my methods but after years of providing sourcing, creating sourced articles (very few stubs), and battles to effect positive change, I have determined that I should not be concerned if someone doesn't like my methods or find them "decidedly odd". With all due respect, I don't care. I actually find it "odd" that with all our policies and guidelines there are factions that think Wikipedia articles don't need to be sourced at all. If an article has languished (sometimes for years), many times with a career tag, and I can sometimes find a source, call attention to it, request help, use tags and follow up, or in any way gain improvements, I can smile. It is a better alternative than the sometimes needless battles at AFD.
A difference between me and possibly some other editors is that I do get involved on article and project talk pages (although to some that could now be considered vain) and leave hopefully constructive edit summaries. I also spend considerable time going back over my contributions history and revisit pages. Sometimes this is in an area that I do not have editing interest so others are better suited. While I am impressed you so easily found a source I am far more impressed that the esteemed Lee Vilenski actually placed many on the article so gave a barnstar for "his" efforts because my act simply called attention to the need. Also many new or newer editors contribute to Wikipedia. It would be far better to advocate providing at least one source for verification since the policy does include WP:BURDEN that states "All content must be verifiable" especially any "challenged or likely to be challenged".
Since I have actually become weary of being good at the ability of giving comments at AFD that returns a "delete" I have opted for some alternative methods. While I may apologize if some people object I do not do so for making or helping to make Wikipedia better. In a case where this project is concerned I hope you won't be bothered if I drop a note on the project page if I see a related article at AFD. Thank you, I hope you have Happy Holidays Otr500 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
