Talk:John Fleck (footballer)

Delete?

This footballer isn't notable. He is a fifteen year old child who has never made a first team appearance.

Is this an example of the "sour grapes" you speak of? - Dudesleeper · Talk 00:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

pr piece

This is more of a PR piece than an encylcopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.0.37 (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? – PeeJay 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2016

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: Not moved with oppose concerns not countered (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

---

John Fleck (footballer) → John Fleck – WP:TWODABS - footballer gets more than twice as many views.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Question how does the footballer pass the second half of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline when Book references are all to John Fleck (actor)? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:

• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
• A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

In many cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus determines which article, if any, is the primary topic.

• Oppose. Page views are only an indicator, and in this case the actor has a strong claim to primary topic per long term significance as well as common usage.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Page views only tell us that readers are arriving here, not that they wanted to arrive here, and in view of the significance of the other John Fleck and the fickleness of search engines they are not a sufficient case for a move. Andrewa (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Fleck (footballer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501170835/http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/football/display.var.1359203.0.0.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/football/display.var.1359203.0.0.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rangers.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C5~1073400%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120706235610/http://www.ccfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10269~2831746%2C00.html to http://www.ccfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10269~2831746%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)