Wikipedia

User talk:Fenix down/Archive 16

< User talk:Fenix down
Latest comment: 4 years ago by KingSkyLord in topic Deletion review for Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Nopphon Lakhonphon

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nopphon Lakhonphon as delete back in January. There's since been some further coverage of the subject.[1][2] Could you restore this to draft, or is a deletion review needed? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have restored it to Draft:Nopphon Lakhonphon if you want to work on it. Fenix down (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Not much there after all, but at least there's the infobox. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It keeps the edit history intact as well, so worth doing if you think you can get GNG satisfied. Fenix down (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Certain IP addresses removing logos

Could you please do something about the two IP addresses that are constantly removing the logo's of Al-Wehda Club (Mecca) and Al-Ittihad Club (Jeddah).

https://spl.com.sa/en/single_club?team=2kzl64gp8x37bon8tyxojqrr1 (Al-Ittihad's page from the official league website)

The club's official website (http://www.ittihadfc.com/)

https://spl.com.sa/en/single_club?team=2xl3g56k2mbuwdbre46s29vt4 (Al-Wehda's page from the official league website)

Thank you

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
  Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

  CheckUser changes

  Beeblebrox
  Deskana

  Interface administrator changes

  Evad37

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ryszard Walkiewicz

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ryszard Walkiewicz. 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. SportingFlyer T·C 11:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryszard Walkiewicz

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I'm very surprised by the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryszard Walkiewicz as I don't see any consensus to delete in the discussion. Consensus appears to be that NFOOTBALL is met, but no GNG sources were found. At the risk of counting votes, there were 6 Keeps, and 2 deletes - however one of the deletes states that NFOOTBALL wasn't met, which surely only leaves one valid delete comment in response to the nomination! Surely this is clouded by the inaccessibility of vintage pre-Internet media sources, rather than a properly unbiased evaluation of whether the player is notable. Personally, I never spent the time to try and research GNG sources, because of the effort involved, the the clear lack of consensus! As such, I think the closure should either be non-consensus (though I can see the case for keep as well). Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. NFOOTY, is a presumption of GNG. When that is challenged, any keep vote that simply states "passes NFOOTY" is by definition meaningless. The bottom line is that this is a player who played a very small number of games. No one was able to show even a single source that could suggest GNG, if you want to contest please indicate what sources you would use to support your argument. Fenix down (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
AFD is not a vote, but 6-1 is not consensus to delete either. Your point about GNG would hold some weight, for a player from the modern era, where we have good access to media materials, where it becomes a recipe for entrenching WP:RECENTISM through temporal WP:BIAS. I don't think that GNG sources are required to concluded whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The article was sourced - five if I remember correctly. Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed this, and I'm sorry, but this wasn't a proper reading of consensus. You've now had a history of being bold with several football-related closures, which is frustrating as a !voter because it ignores the discussion, and I think this one was a step too far. If this was the outcome you wanted, you should have !voted instead of closing the discussion. There was only one keep !vote which I would discount as simply stating passes WP:NFOOTY, every other voter discussed the interplay between the SNG and the GNG. I hope you will please vacate your close, if not I'll have to go to deletion review. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
It's not 6-1, there were 6 keep votes and three delete votes including the nominator. As noted above, AfD is not a vote. Let's review the keep votes, so you can be in no doubt about my conclusions regarding the weakness of these:
  1. Sporting Flyer - keep vote that does not cite any sources to support GNG. Vote actually acknowledges inability to find sources. Singularly fails to deal with the challenge put in place that the presumption of GNG is not met.
  2. Lightburst - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  3. Nfittz - again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance
  4. OLLSZCZ - a discussion of GNG, but not in any real way to address the subject, just a theoretical conversation on the nature of GNG which adds nothing to this specific discussion. No sources cited to indicate GNG in this instance.
  5. Alexh - no policy cited. In fact the statement that this player was playing in a non-professional period seems to indicate NFOOTY failure, let alone GNG.
  6. Smartyllama - statement of passing GNG but no attempt to support this with any sources. No engagement when challenged.
To reiterate for the third time, NFOOTY is not a guarantee of notability, it is a presumption. This was challenged and even though the AfD was relisted twice, nothing was presented which even begun to support GNG. This should be unsurprising to almost everyone as the player played only a very small number of games, so I am not sure what sources editors would expect to see to support GNG for someone who had such a minor impact on the game. Furthermore the sources presented in the article are either primary sources or passing mentions at best. You are more than welcome to go to DRV, and please let me know if you do, as I will re-post what I have written here. I would be very interested in how you think any of the keep votes above indicate that GNG is met. If you can show me something that even suggests GNG I will happily restore the article at least to draft space so it can be worked on. Fenix down (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Based on the way you've characterised my !vote I've decided to just make my points directly at DRV. I'm not sure anyone will agree with me, but I was stunned this was closed as delete, especially given the nominator didn't mention GNG/any sort of before search, but rather disagreement with the SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really sure where your coming from. GNG is the overriding thing here. A failure of any SNG is by definition a failure of GNG. If I have misunderstood your comment in the AfD, I apologise and welcome clarification. However, WP:SPORTCRIT is quite clear about the sort of sourcing that is expected as part of the presumption of notability contained iwthin any of the SNGs under WP:NSPORT. To my mind it is crystal clear that neither you, nor any other keep voter presented anything that came close to that standard. Accordingly the closing admin, whoever it was, would have little alternative but to attached little to no weight to such statements. I have responded to your DRV statement, it is probably best for clarity that any further discussion takes place there. Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I think it was clear, that my 6-1 comment was about the post nomination opinions. Though I'm not sure quite what to do with User:GiantSnowman, whose delete came with a doesn't meet NFOOTY, when the only clear consensus in the discussion was that NFOOTY had been met! Nfitz (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, that's a gross misrepresentation of my keep vote - I can only assume the comments about the other keep votes also have issues! Please improve on that both here, and at the DRV! Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You didn't cite a single source to support GNG. I'm not going to close an AfD as keep because nfitz says it's too historic to find sources. They're either available or they're not. If you cant find them you shouldn't be voting keep. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I you can't read consensus, you shouldn't be closing AFDs. The nominator didn't raise even GNG as an issue, they raised NFOOTY, as did one of the delete comments. That left one valid delete! Which is by no means consensus! I'm not sure how even where your opinion sits, makes it okay to blatantly misrepresent my comment as "again just a "meets NFOOTY" keep vote, no attempt to deal with GNG", and ignore my comment! You can't close as delete when there's no consensus, just because Fenix DDown says it should be deleted! Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have clearly outlined my conclusion and the article is at drv. As I have also noted above I think it is best that discussion takes place in just the one place and drv is the best place for that. Fenix down (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd fix your errors at DRV without me having to critique it there - particularly lop-sided review of the keep votes, and your failure to note that the nomination only mentioned NFOOTY and not GNG, and one of the two delete comments, claimed that NFOOTY wasn't met, despite the consensus otherwise. I also note you fixed the spelling of my name there, but chose to left it wrong here! Nfitz (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlinking

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Two things, first can you please wait for the articles to actually be deleted before unlinking anything. Second can you actually remove the entry from name lists/dab pages instead of unlinking. If they aren't notable enough for an article then they should not be listed at all. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, apologies for not removing names from lists/dabs, I will do that in future. Happy to hold fire on the unlinking until the articles have actually been deleted. The only reason I was going through in advance is because this is a major exercise to expunge several thousand stubs created for footballers who are not notable. We have already been through over 3,000 which have been deleted without contest and to my mind it was easier to unlink prior to deletion than miss a load and leave an awful lot of redlinks around the place which might give the impression that these were notable subjects. I am regularly reviewing those that have been deleted to ensure any unlinking that took place where the prod has been contested are undone. So far, over the several thousand that have been treated in this way, there has been just one which was contested. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Advance unlinking in regular articles is probably fine, my focus was really on dab pages and name articles. Mainly stuff like Nikita Demchenko which should be deleted along with the article, but probably won't if the deleting admin can't check the links. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xezbeth: Here's a link to the backstory involving this issue with the nn footballers. What do you think? ミラP 17:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Ilya Fyodorov too, which is what eventually led me here. One of the two articles on that DAB page was deleted, the other has an active PROD, so for now I've redirected it to the remaining article. If it's deleted, which seems likely, the redirect can be too, and in the unlikely event it's kept, we should probably move it over the redirect as no disambiguation is necessary anymore. Smartyllama (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks guys, you're right. I will go back through my recent edits and look for articles where elements were unlinked in dabs and ensure the entry is removed and where there are no links will process the dab accordingly. Fenix down (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
     

Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはFenix downたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

                                                 Happy holidays

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy New Year!
 
Fenix down,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

 

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Simmeringer Had

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wonder if you could have another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simmeringer Had which you closed as no consensus. The vote!s were either delete or merge. No editor was of the opinion that it should be kept. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   15:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, There were 2 delete votes and a merge. Closing as no consensus felt the right thing to do as there wasn't really strong consensus, or indeed interest in the discussion, overall. It was relisted twice with no further comment, so two other editors (one of which was an admin) also thought there was not enough of a consensus for delete, so it would seem a bit odd to ride roughshod over that given there were no further comments. By closing as no consensus, the article is not being closed as a keep and I wouldn't stand in the way of a renomination somewhere down the road, nor would I stand in the way of someone being bold and merging and redirecting the article. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sumit Rathi

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please unlock Sumit Rathi page as I have created a new article on him with reliable sources. Debabrata Sarkar Mejbill (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, this should be done now, loking at your draft, it appears the player now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Army SC.png

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Army SC.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) 18:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can you review 2019-20 Saif SC Season.I think, it has enoughsourc. So, pleasereviewit as soon as possible & request don’t delete. Because I can add more sources to it P.H.TARU (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean 2019-20 Saif Sporting Club P.H.TARU (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I made mistake, it is correct 2019-20 Saif Sporting Club season P.H.TARU (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've closed the AfD as keep. There was concensus that there were enough sources. Not sure why it didn't automatically remove the tags, but I have done this manually now. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, Noticed you recently removed redlinks from a couple of articles (one being 2019–20 Coupe de France) for footballer Archi Fataki, based on it being a deleted page. I note that since the page was deleted (in 2012) for not being notable, the player has in fact met notability under WP:Footy rules through playing in the fully professional Albianan Superliga, and the page could theoretically be recreated. I also note that both the links you deleted have been added since the page was deleted, and therefore are valid per WP:REDLINK as the subject could have a notable article. Is this something you would consider reverting?

I would question, more generally, whether you should be deleting red links for long-deleted articles, based on the the first sentence of WP:REDDEAL, but realise this is not a clear-cut picture. I would assume you are at least checking that the red links being added date from before the deletion of the target pages?

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't revert it based simply on anecdotal comment, but if you feel him notable then please revert yourself, but bear in mind GNG over NFOOTY (i.e. in this instance it looks like he had one season where he played a reasonable amount of times in an FPL, but I would still challenge on wider GNG as a player who played a few games at FPL level but has since drifted down leagues and shows no sign of a sustained career at a notable level).
In terms of removing redlinks, if an article has been deleted either through Prod or AfD and not recreated then, per WP:REDNO, it is reasonable to assume that they are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia and therefore per WP:REDDEAL do not link to spaces that could plausibly sustain an article, the addition of a redlink post-deletion is no indication whatsoever that a subject has suddenly become notable.
I appreciate that it is not a clear cut area, but to my mind if something is a recent deletion, then the subject is definitely not notable and shouldn't have a red link and if the article was deleted long ago and not recreated, then in all probability the subject is not notable and shouldn't have a redlink. Now this will mean some fall through the cracks that could be notable, but this is worhtwhile as, since red links are meant to be for subjects that are notable, the impression they give to less experienced users is that an article "should" be created. To my mind though these are minimal and if an article is created, a simple advanced search for the individual's name will show all instances where a subject appears across en-wiki and red links can, where necessary, be added. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted article "Necla Güngör"

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! On 22 December 2019, you had deleted the article "NeclaGüngör". She acts now as the technical director, with other words team manager, of the Turkey women's national football team. See [3] (in Turkish). My question is: Does she now qualify as notable, and I may re-create the article adding her current position? Thanks for your reply. CeeGee 11:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, potentially yes, but there can be a difference between the role of technical director and manager. I haven't heard that term used for an international manager. If she is the person in charge of picking the team and deciding on tactics for each game and then actually physically leading the team out on to the pitch at the start of games, then she would be generally considered notable per WP:NFOOTY. However, this would only be the case once she had managed the team in a competitive match or friendly organised either under the auspices of FIFA, or UEFA, simply being appointed is not enough. I would want to see more on her actual role, but I see no harm in creating a draft and moving to the main space after she has managed a competitive game. Fenix down (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • She fulfills the criteria you mentioned above but the official match. I'll wait for her official match participation. Thank you for your note. CeeGee 11:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Manfred Ugalde

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Manfred Ugalde. 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. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC) Hi, sorry. It seems I closed the AfD after the league was added to the FPL list but this happened after other editors had contributed. I'll be honest, i dont think the evidence for full professionalism is that great as presented at WT:FPL so would not be surprised to see this challenged but AfD is not the place to do that. Fenix down (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Simmeringer Had

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simmeringer Had. 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.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

  Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]

  Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

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) 18:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Brunei Shell FC.png

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Brunei Shell 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Five years of adminship

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 

Have a very down happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hello united.gif

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hello united.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) 03:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FC Sagadam old Logo.png

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thank you for uploading File:FC Sagadam old Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

  Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajad Raad

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

No one has commented (or perhaps even) seen the source I added a few hours before you deleted it. Can you relist for further consideration? Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I dont think that would be appropriate, the discussion was open for two weeks. You were the only person voting keep, but even then you didn't provide anything to indicate GNG, merely stating that there are a number of foreign language sources and therefore some of them must meet GNG, which isn't a valid argument. Furthermore, it seemed conclusive from what other editors stated that what had previously been presented was routine in nature, so I'm not sure how one additional source would swing things. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I expanded and translated most of the references in the article. No one provided further comment, so I provided a link to many GNG sources. With no one reacting one way or another, I then added a GNG source to the article, shortly before you deleted it. It's not proper procedure to delete articles shortly after GNG sources have, been added. If you are correct, then relisting it for another week, does no damage, and meets WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
And all you added was routine transfer reports, match reports and speculation. The other editors comments still stood. You might think you have added sources to satisfy GNG. No one else did, and when I reviewed the AfD comparing the article at close to the arguments presented, I was still of the opinion that nothing other than sources that have long been deemed routine had been found. Fenix down (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how you conclude no one else did, when you closed the deletion shortly after I added the source. I don't see the damage relisting, so I have asked for a deletion review. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nfitz (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Could you please let me know when you start one, I can't see one as of now. I presume the reference (which you have, rather strangely not bothered stating specifically either here or in the AfD, is this one. Frankly, I'm not sure how this would satisfy GNG as it is essentially routine transfer talk as far as I can see. Fenix down (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I started it before I notified you - it looks like another user blanked the entire March 2 DRV page shortly after. I've restored. I explicitly noted that I had added the foreign source, just after I added it. I didn't reference it in the DRV or here, because I no longer had the reference after article is deleted. Can you restore the article for convenience, for the duration of the DRV? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I have added my comments, endorsing as the closing admin. I'm happy for another admin to restore the article if they feel it essential, but I am not happy restoring myself. What you are essentially trying to do is argue that the addition of a single, brief source which is essentially the player denying a transfer rumour is suffiicent for GNG. To my mind it demonstrably is not and given that the AfD had already been relisted once, there was, and remains, no realistic chance of satisfying GNG if the sources presented are all that comes from the searching that has been performed. Fenix down (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Léa Khelifi

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Léa Khelifi. 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. Jogurney (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

tensung fc, bhutan super league

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://mycujoo.tv/en/team/tensung-fc-cjzo0gzpi06hg0gvj4wul096o

add logo and for rest see my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.10.19 (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

  Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review for Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification). 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. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fenix_down/Archive_16&oldid=998773366"