Talk:Peter Moores (cricketer)

Requested move 9 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: '''Peter Moores → Peter Moores (businessman) carried out. Peter Moores becomes disambig'''. I don't see consensus that the cricketer is the primary topic, or overwhelming evidence that overrules the oppose votes there. However, there does seem to be enough consensus that the businessman is not the primary topic, hence a disambig page is in order. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

– This individual is clearly the most notable of the two individuals currently with this name on WP. When searching for "Peter Moores" I suspect most people would want to go to the article for the current (at time of typing) England cricket coach, and not the businessman who doesn't seem to have done anything for more than 10 years, per WP:LEAST and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter Moores (cricketer) → Peter Moores
 * Peter Moores → Peter Moores (businessman)
 * Support. The cricket coach is definitely the more notable of the two and will attract the most interest. Jack | talk page 19:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal of (cricketer) the businessman, philanthropist, opera-label sponsor, and namesake of the Peter Moores Foundation is long term more notable than the cricket coach. But cricket fans might still land at the wrong page so perhaps a dab should be at the baseline. There is also [Peter Moores (policeman)] a Rhodesian superintendent who negotiated with ZANU but who doesn't a hit in any en.wp article. mentions of the businessman are spread across a wide range of articles making a sudden flip flop of articles here undesirable. This RM should also be notified to WP Opera and WP Classical music if it is proposed to move the businessman. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons laid out by User:In ictu oculi: The cricketer article has existed since April 2007 while the philanthropist Moores has been up since June 2006. While the article could well be expanded, his work in supporting the arts has had an enormous impact in the UK and beyond. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what if the article has existed longer? What bearing does that have?  "While the article could well be expanded..." - explain how that makes it the primary topic?  It doesn't.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per In ictu oculi.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   00:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The cricketer is not 'clearly the most notable of the two individuals' (citeable evidence please?), and the nominator's 'suspicions' that most people would seek for him are just that. The 'businessman who doesn't seem to have done anything for more than 10 years' has left a legacy which is likely to last beyond the career of the cricket coach. I suppose attitudes on this question might depend on whether editors are opera fans or cricket fans, but WP:IDONTLIKETHAT is not a justification for edits. In ictu oculi's dab proposal is appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now copyedited the Peter Moores page and added substantial additonal information about the PM Foundation . I hope this gives the lie to the claims that the subject 'has not done anything the past 10 years'.--Smerus (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral Some information that might help in deciding: according to 'Page view statistics' for two pages, the cricketer's page had 7662 views in the past 30 days and the philanthropist's 730. There was an upsurge in views 9 March 2015 for both pages which coincides  with the proposed rename and move. Before that the cricketer's page was receiving very approximately thrice as many views per day.SovalValtos (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Against page view statistics, it's legitimate to consider likely long-term significance. --Smerus (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.