User talk:Fenix down/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fenix down. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A user has, unknowingly, moved Category:TSV 1860 München II players to Category:TSV 1860 Munich II players, not realising that categories can't be moved that way. I have now added it to the list of TSV 1860 Munich-related categories to be moved at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 6. I have never seen this happen before and therefore I'm unsure what to do. Can and admin revert this move (I tried and can't) or is it not required in the first place and will be sorted out when all six categories get moved? Calistemon (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you could delete all the expired prods for season articles? For some reason they're not getting deleted despite being expired for almost a day (and this is giving people a chance to deprod them – without a rationale of course!). Cheers, Number 57 15:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. For any other editors reading this, the deletion rationale seemed sound, observing the correct subject specific guideline and recent AfD consensus supporting this. However, I am happy to restore to any editors userspace any article which they feel they can improve to meet GNG through the addition of significant sourced prose from independent sources. Fenix down (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Number 57 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering why exactly you deleted the '2015–16_Eastleigh_F.C._season' page. Eastleigh FC is a club I have a great interest for and have visited this page many times to retrieve information I am interested in about the season and have added a lot to it myself. Is there a possibility that it could be restored so I could continue to update it, as well as others who update it? Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt rogers1997 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to restore the deleted 2009–10 Grays Athletic F.C. season article to my userspace please? Cheers, --Jimbo^[online] 16:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored it to User:Jimbo_online/2009–10_Grays_Athletic_F.C._season. I did think about not deleting this one as there are a lot more words than the normal season article, but to be honest, once you strip away those that are from non-independent sources (i.e. Grays themselves or other club websites) all that you are really left with is a lot of routine transfer talk and match summaries and consequently, the article is little more than a list of results and signings in prose form. Consensus is that this sort of coverage is insufficient to grant notability. In addition, Grays level makes the subject a clear WP:NSEASONS failure. As such, if this was to be moved back into the mainspace I would want to see sources that actually discuss the season itself, not just individual matches. For example is there any source that provides a season summary? Fenix down (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, yes I have actually asked for it to be restored at WP:UND. Might be worth going through AfD. But I'll have a look for more third party sources to meet guidelines, and in particularly more about the season in general. Thanks, --Jimbo^[online] 16:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of FC Akhtamar.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Lernayin Artsakh FC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There are a few more season articles which have been overdue for deletion for a couple of days, if you wouldn't mind doing the honours? Cheers, Number 57 21:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, think I have worked my way through them all now. Again to any other page watchers I am happy to restore to userspace any article which an editor genuinely feels they can get to GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down. Your Twinke seems to be set on "minor edit" so your reverts of Hashim-afc are showing up as minor. I understand that manually reverting them all is pain, ubt nt sure if they should be minor edits per WP:MINOR. I've never used Twinkle so I don't know how it works, so maybe that's just the way it does things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks March July, I didn't notice that, and you're right they shouldn't be minor. I know we have had discussions about logos in the past, but I did think this mass removal without any form of consultation was a step too far, particularly since several removals were reverted by yourself as fine. There's a thread here discussing this in which I have outlined my thoughts as have a number of other editors already. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Your concern about possible new article is understood, but in the reality it's pretty much the same team. In Belarus, the "dissolution" of most clubs from small towns usually means just their withdrawal from nationwide competitions to amateur/regional level. The club Zvezda Maryina Gorka was playing at amateur/regional level (Minsk Oblast league) since at least 2002, and most likely before that (it's hard to tell due to lack of Internet coverage of such ancient times). And this was the same team that joined Second League in 2015 (renamed to Viktoriya just before the start of the season). TLDR: I think your move should be reverted. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can reference what you have written above which would provide a greater line of continuity then I am happy for the move to be redone. However, as it is, it was just moved without anything being added to the article. If it is difficult to tell then I would err on the side of caution, have two articles with hatnotes between the two. Fenix down (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Lerotholi Polytechnic Logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Key elements and were sourced. So reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcroberts91 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Rovers FC Guam Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The correct names of clubs are FC Arsenal-Kyiv and FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya. That clubs were renamed, they play with new names. See the sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] What is the reason of reverting of my edits? 46.200.26.232 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

For the following reasons: Because an editor disagrees with you and you are refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I am not convinced that WP:COMMONNAME is met here. For example this may use "-", but the badges here and here on the same site does not. Additionally, plenty of English language sources such as this and this for example do not. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your second link is about another Arsenal. Your third link uses "-". Fourth link is from 2014, before renaming. The correct names of this club is FC Arsenal-Kyiv, see the official site [9] 46.200.26.232 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

As requested, please keep this in one place. WT:FOOTY would be the best place as it encourages more people to voice their opinions. Fenix down (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In future, when responding to other editor's comments on my talk page, could you please check first to see if I've responded on the other editor's talk page? Take the discussion on Transfermarkt earlier today for example. I appreciate input, but the discussion did get a little convoluted with separate threads of the discussion being on separate pages. Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I thought you usually responded on your own talk page but will check in future. Fenix down (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Mariana Islands national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark McDonald. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Mariana Islands national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark McDonald. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I am not sure what to properly call a new page, actually. I'll post an entry into WP:RM. Geregen2 (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

That's OK, no problem. I'm not knowledgeable enough, given that there was already content there whether a more complicated content merge is needed as well. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think current consenus is very ridiculus and discussion went on few people who don't know south korean football club culture. Please let's discuss again and involve many users.

Each Club name has own tradition and meaning. Ulsan Dolphins is just a tight fit not a global name. Please don't fit the club name on American and European sports club name standard.

I know some English language based football websites use Ulsan Dolphins But they also ignorant of South Korean football club culture and just fit Englilsh language style club name. So, They are not reliable source.

I belive that you understant what I mean.

So When can we move discuss again? Next month?

Footwiks (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ulsan Dolphins is clearly the common name used globally as the official name is so cumbersome. I see no evidence that that has changed in the last few months. You need to remember that this is the English Wikipedia and so we would only go with the official where there is no common English language name. There is a clear English language name and that is Ulsan Dolphins. Please don't start another rm unless you can show a different common name in English language sources. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Today, I made a call Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC staff over the phone. Staff said to me. Ulsan Dolphins are ridiculus and illusion name that created by only egocentric English native speakers and English language based website.

I think this is the blind spot of English Wikipedia.

Do you really think that English Wikipedia have naming rights because of just encyclopedia convinience. I really understand that Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC is cumbersom and strange to English native speakers.

But Don't fit the south korean football club name to American and European Sport Club style (ex Miami Dolphins, London Lions)

This club is typical works team, Dolphin is not important element. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard is most important element in this name.

If we make simple name for wikipedia, Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard FC or Hyundai Mipo Dockyard FC.

These name used more often than Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard FC in South korea.

There were many wrong English name about south korean thing - place names, mountain names, building names and so on.

Because, The Westerners named in only their view without careful examination before 1960s,

But Now 2016, You can check out right English name from the south korean on internet.

You can also make a call to Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC staff.

82-052-209-5353

They can also speak English. Please ask staff.

I am really sad about current situation.

English Wikipedia is still age of imperialism. Only English natvie speaker's veiw is unconditional,

Anyway, I have to start RM discussion. If you confident, Let's discuss again with many wiipedia users.

So Next month, When can we discuss again?

Footwiks (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME, it specifically states: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. I am well aware that Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC is the official name, but it simply is not, in English language sources, as shown clearly by the various ghits the different names produce as I cited in the previous RM, the commonly used name in English language sources to refer to the club, presumably as the official name is inherently cumbersome. If you want to change the name then you need to show a different name that is more commonly used in english language sources. At the moment, I don't see that there is one. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I accept that Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC is very long and so cumbersome. But Name Ulsan Dolphin is result of ignorance about South korean football club culture.

If we make simple, We have to choose Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard FC or Hyundai Mipo Dockyard FC. There are alternatives.

As you know, After googling, there are many name, Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC , Ulsan Hyundai Mipo Dolphin FC , Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Dolphin FC , Ulsan Dolphins. Ulsan Dolphins is not dominent result and just simple name for English native speaker.

Anyway Let's discuss at article talk page, I also want not to move to official name. Footwiks (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) 09:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix down,

I'm trying to delete (undo) a post on FK Tikveš page but for some reason I can see the changes only when I'm logged in, when I'm not logged in my last edit doesn't show up on the actual page and I can't see it either in the View history. Maybe I haven't followed the correct procedures while undo-ing this particular post, or is there something else that you can advise? The post that I want to undo is the last one, made by anonymous user at 10:39 29 July 2016 in the Records section. The reason is because there is no confirmation from official sourse to prove that Antonio Tasev has scored 172 goals for FK Tikveš, until 1995/96 season he has scored only 38 goals, that is confirmed in the book Karovski, Ilija; (1996) (in Macedonian). ФК Тиквеш 1930–1995 (FK Tikveš 1930–1995) p.168. In the folowing couple of season before his departure from the club he definetelly scored few more goals, but the number of 172 looks randomly chosen and exagerated, without any prove.

Your help would be highly apretiated.

Kind Regards, F00700I (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi F00700I, everything looks fine to me, your edit seems to be showing up in the article and the edit history. Fenix down (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. That is really strange, I still can't see my changes if I'm not logged in so I'm wondering if only logged users can see my contributions, a bit worries now but hopefully everything will be fine. Thank you anyway, F00700I (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned that given you have been participating in several similar debates on the delete side, that you aren't the best person to close this debate. Can I ask you to re-open it, and let a neutral moderator close it. At a minimum, I think given the recent no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season that there is no the "clear consensus" you make out - especially with the 3-3 keep/delete vote (not that raw numbers should be the deciding factor). Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, I am happy that my close here is the correctt outcome made in good faith. I was very careful to make clear my reasons for closing. You are right, the 3-3 vote means nothing, particularly when no keep vote addresses either GNG or NSEASONS and the AfD had been open for a long time and keep arguments, particularly your hyperbole, we're well refuted by reference to guidelines and overwhelming consensus from recent AfDs that clubs at this level are not notable enough for their own season articles, especially before the season has started properly. In this instance especially with the season not even having begun I was clear that my close did not preclude recreation if sufficient sources existed later to satisfy GNG. I do not believe another administrator assessing the arguments presented would have closed differently. Fenix down (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't think you should be touching it myself. I'm off on vacation, I'll have to consider further later. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, why you blocked indefinitely User:Ryan101 (I understand that his edition was wrong but it also can would be experiment editing)? He's most probably inexperienced user and why you blocked he so fast? Dawid2009 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Had it been the addition of a player then I could accept that this was a test edit. However, it was the deliberate overwriting in the list of players plus additional false information across several articles that led me to believe that this was a concerted attempt to insert false information and make it more believable by inserting the information across multiple articles. Secondly, Ali Daei is world famous for his international achievements, there is simply no way this other player had a better record and just happened to be missed by the world. Furthermore, the reference added to support the players caps and goals whilst it looked credible, produced a 404 error and was also not archived by the Wayback Machine. As this was a bare URL reference, a copy and paste error seems unlikely. My view was this was a deliberate attempt to add false credibility to the claims he was making. Fenix down (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I urdenstand. I just have suggested that possible is that it was experiment editing due to the fact bb-codes in wiki sometimes are complitated and user could count on improved from someone's hand and indefinitely was suprise to me (is this forever?). But can possible that you have a better feeling and you know better. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I have unblocked. Let's see what happens. Fenix down (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you deleted the Jack Brazil page because he "hasn't managed a significant professional club" but I mentioned that he managed Bayangol in Mongolia (professional team) and now is head coach of the Cayman Islands National Team. I also linked references. Can you take another look at his page please?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.83.209 (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I was back on Wikipedia, and finally had a chance to look at this again. Reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed it states that not only should the closing Admin have not participated in the discussion, they should be WP:UNINVOLVED. Reading that page, given you were simultaneously unequivocally arguing for deletion of 17 similar pages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010–11 AFC Wimbledon season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016–17 Dagenham & Redbridge F.C. season, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002–03 Hereford United F.C. season, I don't think you meet WP:UNINVOLVED. As such, I do again ask that you remove your closure and let someone who is WP:UNINVOLVED close it. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

As I stated previously, I provided clear closing notes, which underlined the fact that no keep voting editor had provided any argument supported by guidelines whereas all those voting delete pointed to the correct guidelines and to wide ranging consensus across a number of other discussions. I also noted that it is hard to see how a season passes GNG before that season has passed, but as time goes on GNG may be met and the article could well be recreated. As for being involved, Iddon'tbelieve that is applicable here, the last paragraph of WP:INVOLVED is quite clear that someone is not involved when there actions are those that any reasonable admin would have done. Given wide ranging consensus cited in the discussion plus the other arguments presented I do not see how any other conclusion could have been reached. The AfDhad been open for some time and I saw it as a simple administrative action to close given what Ihave noted above. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, especially as WP:UNINVOLVED the final example refers to straightforward cases (such as blatant vandalism), not to a split-vote AFD where there's no consensus. Even if your closure did follow what an uninvolved editor would do (I'm involved - I'm not to say), then I think it's important to keep the appearance of being uninvolved (may be seen as having). Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, re-reading the AFD, I note I failed to point out the problem with the argument that the team doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS, which simply says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. Is this league professional - yes. Is the team fully-professional - yes. Is it a top league - yes, it's national. I think that Tier 5 teams all meet WP:NSEASONS as written. Nfitz (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunaty widespread consensus disagrees with you, the fifth tier is not a top professional league. The deletion archive shows this consensus without any doubt. I have made may case in both the close and now repeated it twice here. There is nothing more I can add. NSEASONS is not met, GNG ccan'tbe met as the sseason had not even started at that point and consensus is that this level fall below that required by NSEASONS. It really is that simple. As the season progresses, if you feel GNG can be shown you are more than welcome to recreate the article. I ddon'treally think there is anything else to add to this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for discussing. I disagree with you, so I'll DRV. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - no hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem, it's important that processes like these are followed where there is disagreement as it helps get the opinions of others who were not previously been party to the original AfD. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Could do a histmerge of this page with Draft:Odsonne Édouard? It looks like the article was created as copy/paste page move. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that should be done now. Fenix down (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2016–17 Torquay United F.C. season. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hi. Odds are good that DRV won't overturn your close. I would however suggest that you consider just undoing the close yourself and letting someone else close it. I think it's a minor thing, but probably best for the encyclopedia. I deem it unlikely that would cause a change in outcome. Hobit (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I would actually argue the other point, that in this instance it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia not too, partly because to do so would be overly bureaucratic but also because involved is quite clear that such actions are acceptable where no other administrator could reasonably be expected to have come to a different opinion. I think these outweigh the potential for an individual to perceive an issue around the close where none actually exists. However, I am perfectly willing for consensus in the discussion to say otherwise. Fenix down (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A quick review of the article history would show consensus has existed, as is the norm in British English, to use the plural form on this article for more than 7 years. If Kő Cloch is insistent on changing it, our policies put the onus on him to gain consensus to make the change, not change it then demand consensus to revert it. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not restricted to individual articles. Look at the other Premier League teams, they all use "is" with the exception of Stoke, including a number of good articles. It is clear that the consensus for Premier League clubs is to use "is". In fact Stoke is the only current or former Premier League club to use "are". Everton was an outlier, it is beneficial that this small change has been made as it aligns the lead to similar articles. Additionally, as noted elsewhere MOS:PLURALS is not a binary guideline, so there is no right and wrong. The consensus has grown organically that top teams in England use "is" (lower teams may do too, I lack the inclination to go through every football league club) and so Everton should change to be aligned to that. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not unsourced content, I own all this informations and I archived it for a long time ago.

Hello, friend. Please check the article again, my 4th source links to page where various media articles from Dnevni Avaz (Primary Bosnian daily news) and Al Jazeera Balkans, are compiled and pictured, collectively confirming all of what has been claimed about the player, however they are pictures of media clippings, and in Bosnian, is this an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VukanCrv (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Hi Vukan, The pictures of media clippings aren't very helpful in this context, because it is difficult to read what they say. Furthermore, it is not clear what content from the clippings you are referencing in the text. Those articles may indeed show some wider GNG, but you need to use those sources to create sourced prose to illustrate GNG and then link, not to the website with the pictures of the articles but either to online sources with the actual articles in them or at least provide full references (i.e. publication, page numbers, date, etc) to offline sources, so that it is possible to for a reader to check them if they wished. Don't worry, you have plenty of time (at least a week) to do this before the AfD will be closed. Please also do not remove the AfD tags from the top of the article while the discussion is still ongoing. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Erchim.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

could you please check into this user, he has taken the time to compliment a nuisance vandal IP that you blocked last month. Look here which is the same user as this. Don't wish to waste your time but someone who says (translated) "I looked at your edits here and I liked what I saw. Bulgaria and Bulgarians have many enemies here. We may have their benefits, and mostly in favor of the Bulgarian cause. If you are interested in joint cooperation in favor of this cause, write my smartstealt@gmail.com" Appears to be someone intentionally causing trouble but that is just my opinion, I do not know about much of the subject matter.18abruce (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

hi I will like to know why this account Alagie Ousman Jeng Is deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.75.15 (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, he is a non-notable footballer per WP:NFOOTY in the fact that he has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football. Secondly, there is no indication of wider GNG. Thirdly, and most importantly, as you can see here, the article has been deleted multiple times, the last two times because the recreation is the same article in the main as that which consensus decided did not show sufficient notability here. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

mr fenix what do you mean he is not a player why can you verify online from www.macaufa.com/kei lun fc and bhutan football federation / thimphu fc. About the article.been deleted before was that it was the first time to creat article and was missing some steps. please verify about the player before you delete these articles.

You seem to misunderstand me, I am not calling into question whether he exists, it is obvious that he does. The problem is that he simply is not notable. Please see the links in my original response for the relevant notability guidelines as to why he is not notable and the discussions that have taken place where others have also agreed on this. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

hi fenix, You deleted The article Alagie Ousman Jeng. This article have been deleted many times because it was the first time to create article and we had no idea about writing it and miss a lot of steps which lead to the deletion. Now that we know what is needed to write the article and you delete it again. you said that the player did not play fully professional .Please go and verify you made a big mistake, the player is currently employ by kei lun in the Macau premier division .

Please check these links and verify it for your self.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_Lun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macau_Football_Association

http://www.macaufa.com/pdf/2016/Club_info/First/3.pdf

http://www.kuenselonline.com/world-cup-qualifier-gives-fillip-to-local-league/

http://www.bbs.bt/news/?p=50013

please check all these links and let me know what is the problem now or what else you need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.75.15 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure you are really understanding what I am saying, maybe I am not making myself understood clearly. Let me try again.

So, there are two ways a footballer can be deemed notable, either by satisfying the subject-specific guideline WP:NFOOTY or satisfying wider GNG. Let's look at both of these and incorporate the references you have listed above into the GNG discussion

NFOOTY: There are two key questions that need to be answered here:

1. Has the player played in a fully professional league? This is a league which consensus has decided should be added to this list. Of the clubs he has played for, whilst he may have been paid and the club itself may be professional, there is no agreement that the league in which the club plays for is fully professional - i.e. that all clubs participating pay their players a salary sufficient for them to require no other form of employment.
2. Has the player played senior international football? The answer is no in this case

GNG: As the player fails the subject specific guideline, he must be shown to have received sufficient, reliable coverage in independent sources to satisfy GNG. Let's look at the sources you have noted above and see how they fit into the requirements of GNG.

1 - this is a link to a Wikipedia article, I am not sure what you are indicating here, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for notability

2 - Again this is a link to Wikipedia, the same comment applies.

3 - This is from the Macau FA, this is not independent coverage as the Macau FA is intrinsically linked to football competitions in Macau and have a vested interest in promoting the game and its players.

4 - This is independent coverage, but is not significant as it consists of only a couple of lines on the player. A dedicated article interviewing him at length would indicate greater notability.

5 The same comments apply here as to point 4.

So in summary, the player does not pass the subject specific guideline and although there is some coverage in independent sources of his time in Bhutan, it is insufficient to satisfy GNG. Let me know if you have any more questions. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying not to edit war, and have posted on both his talk page and the article talk page but had no response on either. Both players are listed in the first team on the official site http://www.evertonfc.com/teams/first-team?page=3 douts (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was talking just about the heading title, but if a user is being disruptive, the best way to deal with it is to speak to an admin if they won't answer on their talk page, not continually revert. Fenix down (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have asked User:Mattythewhite to intervene/provide an opinion, but in the meantime im just trying to keep the article both tidy and up-to-date douts (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, You claim I need to delete edits I made to my football teams page. Your comments stated that there was no evidence "has not played in a national competition". Please note that our team has never claimed to play in the national team. This is an amateur league in China. The achievements are based on the website that I have cited before (Chendgufootball.com).Thanks.Danny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.237.22 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Danny, that is the reason that the article has been nominated for deletion. If football clubs cannot show wider cover GNG, then they at least, per WP:FOOTYN have to have played either in the national levels of competition in their country or participated in the top level national cup competition. I don't believe Baozilona ever have and so they would not appear to be notable. The source you cite above would also not seem to be independent per GNG.Fenix down (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have posted something on my page about an edit war. Sorry about that. Let me explain.

1. I added League of Ireland Premier Division mid-2000's as a fully professional league with sources as I thought this was constructive to add source and fix what I believed an inacurracy. Of course I was aware of the overall dispute but by being specific about those years I figured I was adding something uncontroversal.

2. I was in the midst of adding extra sources and in the edit page. Seems that you had reverted my initial edit before I saved it. This explains why it appears that I remade the change.

3. On a separate part of the page I added source, just sources, and not related to the dispute. This was removed by GiantSnowman and I am not sure why. The sources just explained further why the Nigerian League is fully pro, which there already was a consensus on.

4. I dont understand if there is a dispute that Ireland can sit on the not fully pro list so I though to be fair it should be removed.

Although it appears there was some kind of edit war - I want you to understand the above history so perhaps its not as bad as you figured.

I am focussed on the Talk page now to try and reach some consensus.

If you look at the history of the article in, on 7th July 2009 the League of Ireland was removed because there was a dispute ("List of fully professional leagues: hide Ireland for now - no real consensus on this yet"). It was added back in without any consensus (there was still a long discussion on the Talk page at that time on the matter). As there has been no consensus reached since it was removed in July 2009 can you remove Ireland from the "list of not professional leagues" please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

On Ciarán Kilduff's article for deletion you said:

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Restoration rationale is flawed, **consensus is that european appearances only count towards NFOOTY if a) **they are in the competition propoer**, not qualifying rounds, and b) they are in matches between teams both of who play in FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• • since he has appeared AND scored in the competition proper, helping Dundalk become the first Irish team to gain a draw/point in the competition "proper" with hits of 130,000 and the story being reported in all across Europe, is he notable enough now? Many Irish people are hearing about this fella in the news having scored this famous goal, do a search expecting a wikipedia type article to get more encyclopedic information on his background. The original article is still intact, is easily sourced and is notable enough now. Fredbobhurst (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred, I would make several observations:

1. Firstly, playing in the competition proper is only relevant per WP:NFOOTY when the player involved is playing for a team in a fully professional league against a club from another FPL. As Dundalk are not in an agreed FPL, and he has not played senior international football or in an FPL for any other team, he cannot fulfil NFOOTY.
2. As such, he will need to satisfy GNG. I would caution that the achievements of Dundalk as a team should not be misconstrued as conferring notability on the individual players involved per WP:NOTINHERITED. Those players still need sufficient significant, independent coverage on themselves to satisfy GNG. This however does not mean he cannot be notable, nor that his European exploits have not now generated sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG.
3. I would further caution against using google hits as a determinate of notability.

I have recently undeleted an article on Sean Gannon, where another editor was able to present additional sources on the player specifically which indicated GNG. I would recommend that you have a look at this article if you have not already to gain an understanding of what sources are generally acceptable. If you can then indicate to me what sources you would propose to use to indicate GNG, I would be happy to restore the article to your userspace so you could work on it and then get it back in the mainspace.

This wouldn't be a confirmation of GNG however, it could end up at AfD again, but if you think he has received significant coverage then it is worth another crack. As a word of caution, I would advise against using match reporting, stat sites, etc to indicate GNG as consensus is that these are not sufficient as they are neither significant coverage, nor sufficiently focused on the player in general. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Fenix down (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fenix. I had put a note on @Malcolmxl5: (the admin who deleted the page before) page and @IrishTennis: has also requested the same player's article to be restored. I was hoping that the coverage that he has enjoyed including internationally headlines, personal awards, and a full piece which is not a match report featuring a full interview with Kilduff for a national paper, I was hoping this would be enough to make him notable. Please let me know if you need anything else.

So I thought I had saved the article combing that i did last night but apparently not.

• basically the more recent GNG sourcing can be divided between match reports which mention him in the headline and give him alot of credit (ie emphasisnig his importance) for the historic win, obviously there are several from the Irish media but here are non Irish articles demonstrating GNG beyond merely passing irish interest. 1, 2, 3.

• Then there are interviews with him post game as above, 4.
• But there is also a narrative surrounding his recovery from a bad back injury in order to play (having just missed the Legia Warsaw game was also newsworthy, he was interviewed by rte prior to these games also.). 5, 6, 7.

• These are all taken from articles a google search of "Ciarán Kilduff" in the title (ie I have done minimal searching, I could go older or look for specific events etc), there are obviously older articles prior to this year detailing his importance for the team etc especially from irish media but as you can see, he is considered very newsworthy in mainstream, reputable irish papers (not just random online blogs) & he is being mentioned in non-irish media also. Fredbobhurst (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred, sorry for the delay in replying, has this been restored to your user space at all? If not, let me know and I will do so, the refs you have provided above seem to indicate GNG to me. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt seem so, no. The "deleted" page from googles caches has also disappeared. Thanks Fredbobhurst (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Here are a few more articles which may be useful to reference when you are touching up the article. [10], [11], [12], [13]. Good luck! --IrishTennis (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred, sorry for the delay, I have been a bit forgetful about this. I have restored the article to your userspace here. Please note that whilst you are free to move to the mainspace once you feel you have satisfied GNG, the restoration to your userspace is not confirmation of notability. However, the links both you and IrishTennis (thanks for these btw) do seem to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Fenix down. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven McKagen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven McKagen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)