Jump to content

User talk:Fenix down/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Kambuaya

Hey! Could you explain how you determined the consensus to be "keep" regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Kambuaya? --MrClog (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the player objectively passes NFOOTY, there was one editor who was very adamant that he didn't pass GNG. However other editors disagreed and were of the opinion that the multiple sources presented were sufficient to satisfy GNG. In my mind this was just enough on the strength of the arguments to creep over the line. Fenix down (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. My reading would be as follows:
  • A few editors simply say that the player meets WP:NFOOTY and should thus be kept. In the nomination it isn't challenged that he meets NFOOTY, it is challenged that he meets GNG. A quote from NFOOTY itself is presented to show that all articles should still meet GNG.
  • 2 editors (me and Levivich) argued that the article does not meet GNG and 2 others that he does (Nfitz and SportingFlyer—just read through it and could only find these two arguing that position).
  • I created a table, with Levivich, explaining our position regarding GNG. Nfitz and SportingFlyer contest 2 things: 1. whether the Kampiun.id links are SIGCOV, and 2. whether Kampiun.id is reliable.
  • Regarding the SIGCOV story it simply seems to be a disagreement where one argues they are trivial and another says they aren't—not sure if consensus can be determined there.
  • Regarding the reliability !delete (Levivich and me) brings the following argument: "Unclear editorial policies, etc. No "about us" page exists (for as far as I know), only a small text at the bottom of every page". !keep (Nfitz and SportigFlyer—others didn't argue re this issue) says: "there's no indication that none of these sources are reliable" and "don't think Kampiun's unreliable. My reading would be that there are stronger arguments against reliability than in favour of, especially because none of the !delete concerns have been addressed.
  • Based upon my reading then, !keep has not shown that there are reliable sources to meet GNG (thus a delete outcome). At the same time, I realise that such a close would seem to be a supervote, and as such, I would understand a no consensus outcome.
I hope you reconsider your position. --MrClog (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, the afd had two editors arguing against gng and two for gng, the rest of the contributors to the discussion voted keep based on nfooty. The assumption of gng with nfooty carries weight in this instance where this is a player for whom most sourcing is likely to be found in non English language sources. Given that a reasonable amount of sourcing was found despite no local language speakers participating in the discussion and the search being entirely online, that this is a player who plays in an fpl and that the sourcing contained several instances of non trivial coverage, it is reasonable to accept that this player does pass gng. I'm sorry you and levivich put a lot of effort into the discussion, but your views were simply not supported by other editors comments.
I completely reject your arguments on reliability as I don't think you present any arguments as to why they are unreliable, such as being directly connected with the subject, or wider reports in third party sources questioning the accuracy of the sour e as a whole.
As an aside, I would recommend the two of you present more succinct arguments that are more easily digested. I wonder how many editors saw your comments and tables and just thought: tl;dr? Fenix down (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your reply. I have been thinking about it and would like to specifically talk about this part: "The assumption of gng with nfooty carries weight in this instance where this is a player for whom most sourcing is likely to be found in non English language sources. Given that a reasonable amount of sourcing was found despite no local language speakers participating in the discussion and the search being entirely online, that this is a player who plays in an fpl and that the sourcing contained several instances of non trivial coverage, it is reasonable to accept that this player does pass gng." First, in general: whilst I most certainly think that this can be a convincing argument to keep, no-one made this argument during the AfD. These keep !voters simply noted that the article met NFOOTY (which the nomination agreed on) but never explained why then this article would meet GNG. Because SNGs serve the task of implying if notability exists, I would agree that normally it is fair to read a "Passes NFOOTY" keep !vote as meaning that the subject is thus likely to meet GNG, but if it specifically challenged that GNG is met, voting !keep purely because the article meets NFOOTY does not contribute to that discussion.
Now, the bolded part: specifically this section was (for as far as I know) not argued by anyone in the discussion, right? So it being part of the closing rationale seems to be against policy regarding determining consensus.
About the italicized part: the question whether the sources were non-trivial (SIGCOV) under the GNG was the subject of quite some debate and 2 argued it was and 2 argued it wasn't. Based on reading it, I am not certain how you determined there to be a consensus in favour of it being SIGCOV.
I do see that there was probably not a consensus to delete, but I do not see that there was a consensus to keep, so I think "no consensus" would have been appropriate. Thanks for your time, MrClog (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sending this message as a reminder. --MrClog (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't really aware that a response was required. I don't really have anything else to add to my earlier comments. My statement which you quote above, was a statement of fact about the discussion that took place and was my conclusion from the evidence presented by the editors who presented it. The editors who quoted NFOOTY were, by definition happy that the resumption of GNG contained within NFOOTY was correct. I felt the additional sources presented were just about sufficient to support this presumption. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Alright. I don't agree with you here but I'm not going to go to DRV for a football stub. --MrClog (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, but I wouldn't take it personally if you did! I'm certainly not saying that this is the most notable player in the world by any stretch of the imagination. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't take it personally. --MrClog (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Bhutan clubs

Hey, I moved all Bhutanese clubs to "FC" since this is how they are addressed in secondary sources like Bhutan national newspaper, Soccerway, RSSSF etc., and also in primary sources like their FB profiles. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You haven't really moved all of them, now we are stuck with a bunch of clubs labelled F.C. and some labelled FC. I don't mind which one is used, as long as a redirect remains for the other version, but it is better that we have uniformity at a country level. In my time here I have sen more than one edit war break out because there has been a mixture. There's a large number of clubs which still have "F.C." instead of "FC". Could I ask you ether t move the ones you have changed back or change al the others to match the ones you have moved? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, for future reference, the correct way to do things if you disagree wth a move revert, is not to revert it yourself but to engage on the editor's talk page. Fenix down (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Some articles like Yeedzin F.C. cannot be moved. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, let me look at that. shall I move all of the others to FC rather than F.C.? I'm just concerned about uniformity rather than preference for one over the other. Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You can if you can do it, I cannot move some pages since it is saying that the page already exists, so I need to do requests to WP:RMTR to move the pages. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, let me take care of it. Fenix down (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
should be done now, let me know f there are any issues. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
By the way can something be done about that Croatian IP sock that is constantly changing image sizes at Bhutan football articles, and doing other disruptive edits at those same pages, and also making personal attacks etc. ? like this, and now doing it again ("jado slovenski" = nationalistic/personal attack). Can entire IP range 93.143.0.0 - 93.143.127.255 which is assigned to this user get blocked for like 3+ months, since I already mailed Hrvatski Telekom about disruption and they dont give a shit apparently? Snowflake91 (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It is difficult to get range blocks, as these can impact a wider group of potential editors. I thnk the best thing to do is to continue to keep an eye on things. I'm happy to protect any pages that this user disruptively edits in future, so please et me know if you spot anything before I do. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
See this diff, so articles like Thimphu City FC or Transport United FC and pretty much all Bhutan clubs, look at how blurry the logo is in his diff because the IPs are always changing image_size around to too large values, it cannot be 300px anywhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protect below pages please, this user is constantly changing the image sizes, if the logo is uploaded in 220x it cannot be stretched to 300px forcefully by image_size parameter as this will make it blurry, and 300px is too large for infoboxes anyway. Is it possible to topic-ban IP ranges at least, or is this only for registered users? Simply block entire range from editing articles that are marked by WikiProject Bhutan, it is extremely unlikely that anyone else from this Croatian IP range would want to edit Bhutan-related articles.
Hi, I see one had already been PP'd for a month, I have also PP'd the rest for a month with the exception of FC Tertons where I'm not really seeing a lot of disrupting edting going on there. Please let me know if you spot any others and also, please try to engage with the IP editors and encourage them to register an account and work collaboratively with us. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Drukpol FC.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Drukpol FC.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FK Khujand.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FK Khujand.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lao Army.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lao Army.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC

Hi I was wondering if you could reconsider the closure of the above discussion. Of the 3 keep !votes 1 was the article creator that just gave his opinion, 1 was an IP user for which this was his first edit on WP (sock?) gave just his opinion not based on policy or guidelines and the third was a weak keep stating that the Farsi sources were difficult for him to judge and there was a reply Farsi native speaker that analysed them as being run of the mill and local sources. I honestly don't think there is a lack of consensus when you discard the article creator the possible sock and the weak keep had a reply concerning the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, the arguments for delete are weak, with one being that there are no sources when there are many sources in the article and others just being "not notable" comments. I don't think the comment on the sources necessarily indicates they are run of the mill. I'm not saying this is a notable subject, just that the arguments for deletion are not strong with there being very little attempt to discuss the sources presented. For example, what does local mean in this instance? I wouldn't be surprised to see it back at AfD in the future, but afd is not a vote and if editors put forward weak arguments they will be judged as such accordingly. I judged the delete arguments to be very weak, but also the keep arguments to not really engage with the sources either. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sohan Mohammad Sima Qom FSC

I wanted to let you know, as a courtesy, that I have blocked two participants who both !voted keep at this AfD (which you closed) for sockpuppetry. Discounting those two votes, there are four votes for delete (including the nom) and one for "weak keep". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comments above, particularly regarding AfD not being a vote. The strength of arguments on both sides was very poor and there was little attempt to engage in discussion on the quality of the sources. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:L235's implied comment that there is consensus to delete, even if you consider that the arguments were weak. The appropriate criteria is WP:NORG which requires in depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I checked out the sources and there are all run of the mill match reports and appointment notices. This is not enough to pass NORG. The deletes vote include an experienced patroller (me) an admin (User:GiantSnowman) a member of wikiproject Football who is also a reviewer (User:HawkAussie) an editor who specialises in Iranian subjects and is maybe a Farsi speaker but I am not sure (User:BarcrMac). These were not flyby !votes but one's that stated that they considered the sources in the article were not sufficient to show it meets the notability criteria. No-one challenged the analysis with the exception of the puppetmaster and his socks who made no attempt to explain why the sources were sufficient. I very firmly believe that this discussion should be at the very least reopened to allow further discussion of the sources if that is what you believe was lacking. Please reconsider. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It’s a no consensus close, it can be re-nom’d, there’s little point in re-opening it. A new “barefoot” discussion would be better than re-opening that one anyway. – Levivich 13:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Levivich sums up my views perfectly, I wouldn't close a renom myself, but would urge editors involved in any future discussion to actually comment on the sources present rather than just say its not notable. This is an article with a reasonable number of foreign language sources and they deserve to be discussed specifically. Fenix down (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok but it seems a shame to go through the process again when IMHO it should not have been closed. But it's your call. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Nathaniel Phillips

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Nathaniel Phillips. 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. Yoda1893 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC) please check what they do 😓 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#IP_editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.65.77 (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC) squad of transport united fc is outdated please remove if see before others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.87.231 (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Notable players

They aren't notable players. I am only add which foreigners are previously played for this clubs. Joel David 99 (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:National Defence Ministry FC.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:National Defence Ministry FC.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jamyang Tenzin

Notice

The article Jamyang Tenzin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Despite the player having played in a tier-one match as a sub, there aren't really many references to go for this player. A quick check on the google search doesn't give many results either.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HawkAussie (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Garw etc

I am happy to go either way - Garw SBGC is the current name - and sources, including [1] confirm this is the same club. I'll copy the content from the Garw Athletic article into the Garw SBGC article - but do you know how to handle the merge histories and redirect etc? Zanoni (talk)

Deletion Nenad Vekic

4 to 5 is not exactly a consensus. How did you come to determine that the afd should be closed? Whilst Luciano Trani is 4 to 2 in favour of keep and it was relisted.Simione001 (talk) 10:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a vote, afds are judged on the strength or their arguments. in the Vekic discussion it was quite clear that the player fails GNG, the only keep votes rested on nfooty, which is merely a presumption of GNG, no sources were presented to support GNG. For Trani, there are indications the player might pass GNG, but no clear consensus that he does, so it is worth keeping open to see if other opinions are added. Fenix down (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marystown United

I was surprised that that there wasn't more discussion, given that the nominator is a banned sock-puppet, and the claims of no sources other than 3 trivial ones was clearly false, as I quickly found over 300 media sources, including some that looked substantive (obviously many were trivial). Had there been more discussion, I'd have thought that redirect would have been the outcome - isn't that pretty standard to redirect and possibly merge a well-referenced article for a team, to the league in question (in this case the Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup, which is surely notable. I added a lot of material to that article, that should either be in Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup or 2004 Canadian National Challenge Cup. Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think that for the following reasons:
  1. The fact the nominator was a sock doesn't detract from the arguments of other editors;
  2. Whilst you may have been able to find sources, your comments above indicate that many are trivial and only some are possibly significant. Looking at the sources added, I'm not seeing any indication that they aren't just routine match reporting, local level reporting of a relatively trivial manner or articles that may include some coverage of the club beyond the routine, but which clearly are not the primary focus of the article and without access to the source itself or clarification in the AfD which was not provided, it is impossible to tell the level of coverage;
  3. A redirect could have been an outcome, but only if editors had argued for it. Per WP:SUPERVOTE I couldn't have closed it as such.
  4. In terms of merging, again there was no call for that in the AfD.
None of this obviously precludes the recreation of the article if suitable sourcing can be clearly demonstrated. Fenix down (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how merge isn't the proper outcome here (not from the AFD discussion, but from what make sense). I don't want to recreate the article, but I want to redirect. Can you restore it and redirect it? Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I cant, no one in the AfD thought that was a suitable outcome. Fenix down (talk)•
Then the closure was premature. I suggested late in the process a keep. I added some references. There was little reaction. Suddenly there was one additional delete comment from a notoriously inconsistent editor and it was closed before I'd even had a chance to see it and suggest a merge. How is not merge to the league always the proper outcome? I'm little confused why there's no prejudice against recreation, but there is prejudice against a redirect! Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the stick, I looked at the references you added, they were not great, routine match reporting and multiple sources added to simple statements. Merging is only the proper outcome when consensus points to it. You were the only editor to vote keep. Even after you added sources, none of the previous editors were swayed and two further editors also disagreed and everyone else voted delete. I don't know what you want me to do, ignore everyone else and declare an outcome that not only did nobody request, but an outcome that not even the person requesting it now suggested in the AfD. Fenix down (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Only one further editor became involved after I added the sources - just before it was closed - I never even got a chance to respond to the comment. Most was routine, though the one reference in particular looked detailed to me. What I'm asking you to do is create a redirect - why is a redirect prejudiced if recreation isn't? Also merge the material I added - or at least pass it back to me for merging. Ideally, I'd suggest reopening the AFD for further discussion - but even I'm not convinced that the consensus would change. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If you want a redirect, then you need to seek consensus for it. You know this, please stop asking me for what are essentially favours that go against the clear consensus of the discussion. I have not problem with you mergin content to competitions where relevant and where it does not overly weight the article to one team or another. Here is the main body of the article before it was deleted:
'''Marystown United''' is a soccer club founded/located in [[Marystown]], [[Newfoundland and Labrador]].<ref>[http://townofmarystown.ca/index.php?id=49] Town of Marystown Recreation Services</ref> The soccer club has both a male and a female division which, given successful drafting of a team, can compete annually in the [[Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup]] and Newfoundland and Labrador Jubilee Cup tournaments respectively.<ref>[http://www.laurentianshomepage.com/Archives.html] St. Lawrence Laurentians Archives</ref> The winning team in the [[Newfoundland Challenge Cup]] Championship is invited to participate in the [[Canadian National Challenge Cup]]. In 1999, Marystown United lost the [[Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup]] 2-1 to [[St. Lawrence Laurentians]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Seven teams off to nationals |work=[[The Telegram]] |date=6 October 1999 |location=[[St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador]] |page=25|id={{ProQuest|344227491}} }}</ref> In 2004 Marystown United were the [[Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup]] Champions,<ref>[http://www.laurentianshomepage.com/CC2004.html] Challenge Cup Soccer Championship Tournament 2004</ref> and played in the [[2004 Canadian National Challenge Cup]] finishing 8th.<ref>{{cite news |title=Marystown places eighth |work=The Telegram |date=12 October 2004 |location=[[St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador]] |pages=C5 |id={{ProQuest|344377835}} }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Canadian Club Nationals |work=[[The StarPhoenix]] |date=12 October 2004 |location=[[Saskatoon]] |pages=C4 |id={{ProQuest|348784532}} }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Murray |first1=Nick |title=Canada's ten best men's amateur soccer clubs to battle for Challenge Cup |work=[[Journal Pioneer]] |date=6 October 2004 |location=[[Summerside, Prince Edward Island]] |page=9|id={{ProQuest|362198771}} }}</ref> No team other than the St. Lawrence Laurentians or Holy Cross has won the Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup since 2004.<ref>{{cite news |title=Feildians appear up for the Challenge (Cup) as playoff tournament begins in St. John's |url=https://www.thetelegram.com/sports/soccer/feildians-appear-up-for-the-challenge-cup-as-playoff-tournament-begins-in-st-johns-237850/ |accessdate=27 August 2019 |work=[[The Telegram]] |date=31 August 2018 |location=[[St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador]]}}</ref> The [http://townofmarystown.ca/index.php?id=49 Marystown Track & Field Complex] is the home turf of both the men's and women's team. Fenix down (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure you why you say 'you know this' when I have never once dealt with a post-deletion redirect, nor do I know the procedure - I assumed the closer had the discretion to do what seems (in most circumstances) like an obvious redirect. I'm not sure which way to "officially" take a redirect further then - DRV doesn't seem appropriate, as the close was essentially applying consensus, because redirect was never raised. Creating a new redirect seems like the best approach, and waiting for the RFD, but that seems a bit cheeky. Is there a third option? Sorry for the delay responding, I've been out of town all week. Nfitz (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I BOLDly created the redirect Marystown United → Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup. I understand Fenix's point about not wanting to supervote, and also Nfitz's point that redirect are cheap and usually a good alternative to deletion. I'm sure you both have things you'd rather be doing than discussing this. Taking it to DRV would be even worse, requiring more discussion from more editors. I don't think creating the redirect and waiting for RFD is "cheeky", I think we have WP:BOLD for exactly this reason: if it make sense and improves the encyclopedia, just do it. If someone objects, we have processes for handling it (RFD). As for "merging", at this point, if Nfitz (or anyone else) wants to edit Newfoundland and Labrador Challenge Cup to expand the sections on its teams, they're free to do so, and any discussion about that would be a content discussion on that article's talk page. Generally speaking, I think it makes a lot of sense to redirect team articles to leagues, rather than delete them outright, if for no other reason than for search term reasons. I hope neither of you think I'm being disruptive by creating the redirect. – Levivich 18:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold User:Levivich - I'm a bit gun shy on being too bold as it's been used as ammo against me before. I moved relevant information to the NL Cup article. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branislav Tošić

I am obviously incredibly disappointed with your close on Branislav Tošić, while the presumption of WP:GNG had been challenged I made a specific demonstration of sources we had not yet considered that are not necessarily easily found. I think we're a lot closer than you made it seem in your close (the article which covers him is fairly typical coverage of a player in the Balkans, and the article was completely reliably sourced.) As a result, per WP:MUSTBESOURCES, I'm wondering if you could please userfy the article to my userspace so I can continue to look for sources. Thanks in advance. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that all readily available sources were discussed and rejected as satisfying GNG. There was no consensus to userfy the article. I appreciate that other sources may come to light from behind paywalls, in archives and the like, but rather than simply restoring the article to your user space, it would be more appropriate if you could show me what sources you think might satisfy GNG. I'm not going to pass judgement on their merits but so recently after the AfD, I want to be sure we aren't just going to end up back where we started. Sorry for the delay in responding, I haven't been online much the last couple of days. Fenix down (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of FC Spartak Semey.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of FC Spartak Semey.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yogwi21 (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to thank you for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendy Glackin, especially seeing the another case of "Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY" rationale so far. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think ti was the right thing to do, particularly given trends in recent AfDs where people are much more focussed on GNG. I think if everyone had just said meets NFOOTY then it would have had to be closed as a keep, because that is what the consensus would have said, but there isn't consensus here. Fenix down (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - That's surprising to read to be honest, though would explain why AfD is an inconsistent mess - as seen recently with AfD/Ishan Pandita and AfD/Hendry Antonay, which received different outcomes despite similar situations; which was even noted in a deletion argument at the former! The whole point of AfD is to root out the bad and retain the good, right? Polling is not a substitute for discussion etc. R96Skinner (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 Bashundhara Kings season

What was wrong with the 2018–19 Bashundhara Kings season page?

No indication of GNG, per this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandal

stop vandal from al ittihad and al wehda pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.149.73 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

could you please provide wikilinks to the relevant articles, there are a number of clubs with similar names, I am not sure what ones you are specifically referring to. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)

Pist the event?? You might want to double check what you wrote!! Govvy (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks or pointing that out! Fenix down (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Well that was bold! Though I don't see any reason there can't be a significant section on the game in the very brief article about the tournament - which is currently lacking. I'm tempted to argue that we shouldn't have articles about such matches, even if they do meet GNG, as it simply can be merged into an article about the tournament. Do you know if we have guidance on this somewhere? Nfitz (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why not either, the game got some coverage beyond match reporting in the immediate aftermath, I just didn't see the sources offered getting close to sustained coverage to satisfy GNG. I'm not sure there is any specific guidance beyond GNG. Fenix down (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C.

Hi. Could you explain your reasoning for the early close at this AFD, please? While it was certainly an uphill battle, my perception is that there was sufficient contention -- with even some of those arguing for keep acknowledging the merits of the delete position -- to at least warrant being listed for the full week. This is especially true given that the majority of the arguments to keep cited no policies, guidelines or sources. I'd appreciate it if you could help me understand your logic behind the close. Thanks. Lowercaserho (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was overwhelming that the match was notable as the highest scoring game in the world's most popular league. There was no reasonable chance of that consensus altering in my opinion. Fenix down (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. While I do still disagree with the early close, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your rationale a little more. Lowercaserho (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
That's Ok. You should also bear in mind that this doesn't mean this cannot be brought back to AfD at a later date, particularly if there is a drop off in extended coverage, but at this point in time, it seems unlikely that a different opinion would be reached. Fenix down (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

cup

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_Cup_(Bhutan)# Check and edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.155.177 (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the issue? Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira Komatsu

Can you please reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira Komatsu for further discussion. I completely rewrote the article about 36 hours ago, adding several references, including two new ones that demonstrated GNG, and (to my surprise), two that proved that NFOOTY was met (no, it wasn't a B game - it's recognized as a full international - that Poland sent a young squad is immaterial) ... though NFOOTY isn't the key here, it's GNG - and as I was still working to improve the article, I hadn't yet mentioned in the AFD that I'd added these two GNG sources. Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Done with the article restored, I wasn't aware you were working on it as you hadn't said anything about GNG in the AfD. Looks like there is some doubt over the international appearance. Additionally, I wouldn't count the two sources about his goal as satisfying GNG, that is just BLP1E, whch leaves one source potentially for GNG. I would still close this as delete, unless you can actually flesh the article out with more sourced prose from the sources provided. Fenix down (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I should have said something - but in my mind, there was still 3-4 days left before the 7-day deadline, and I really wanted to add another good reference - but clearly my sense of time is wrong! I'll add a quick note now. Nfitz (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries, there's definitely been significant improvement to the article to warrant further discussion, let's see how it plays out. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fenix_down/Archive_15&oldid=928571318"