User talk:SportingFlyer

SportingFlyer 20:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

David Meyer

Hello,

I am reaching out for some more information about the rejected draft for Draft:David_Meyer_(football_player). Are the references not sufficient for notability? There have been articles in both Associated Press and the NYT about his career. And regarding a possible COI, I read the policy and disclosing in the edit summary is sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. I look forward to your response. Bravo1138 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bravo1138: First, were you paid to write the article? You mentioned it was freelance. Second, no, the player does not currently pass WP:GNG, our general notability guideline, nor our specialised WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GRIDIRON. The NY Times articles fails our young athlete/high school sports policy, stats sites don't show notability (the sports reference/track stats), I have no idea what "Virginia Tech Sideline" is - is that his own site? if so, that fails WP:PRIMARY, the SI reference is nothing but a name drop in a list, and the journal times coverage of his college game and NFL signing is typically considered routine coverage. If you find more sources, feel free to add them to the article and resubmit. SportingFlyer talk 04:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:List of India international footballers

Thank you for the message.Actually all the other player's statistics are sourced from the reference 1.Should I add the exact page for each entry?.Kindly inform 😊. Curnews (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Curnews: Hi, I'm not sure which reference you're talking about - reference 1 links to [1] which doesn't have the complete list sourced. SportingFlyer talk 10:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:List of India international footballers

It has 😊,it works like either you have to search after going back and taking india in nations again or you have to change the year to the year in which the footballer made his debut.No worries,I'll add the the exact page as reference to each of the entries. Curnews (talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Now all of the entries have respective references against them😊. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curnews (talk • contribs) 14:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:ŽRK Pelister 2012

Hi SportingFlyer! You recently declined my draft page on ŽRK Pelister 2012 because it did not have sufficient sources. I have improved it and i think that now it has more than one reliable sources. Please review my page again. Thanks! Dellux mkd (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Any update about this topic? Dellux mkd (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Kiriakos Dourekas

Hello SportingFlyer. Thank you very much for reviewing my first article. Could you please let me know what sources would be acceptable? This is my first Wiki article and I plan on creating a page for each member of the Olympiakos management team (I am a big fan). Here is the article that was declined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kiriakos_Dourekas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsto (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kevinsto: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! You need reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject. For the overview of the base guideline we use for every article, see WP:GNG. I will note you will likely find it difficult to find sources which qualify for this for the management team of a football club, an assistant coach for Dinamo Zagreb was recently deleted because there wasn't anything on him in the media apart from that he took a role with the team, but still, good luck! SportingFlyer talk 18:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Thank you, appreciate your comment. I have found multiple good references, I will update my article and resubmit for approval. Thank you, have a good day.

December 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Sofia Airport. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Charles (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is insane. There's nothing wrong with adding properly referenced future routes. SportingFlyer talk 22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So you think Wikipedia policy set out in WP:NOT is insane?Charles (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to bite. I've previously asked you to stop your inconsistent reversion of your own interpretation of WP:NOT to future routes against consensus and you refused. Not only was my revision not promotional, you knew exactly what you were doing when you posted this to my talk page. SportingFlyer talk 22:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: NK Neretvanac Opuzen has been accepted

NK Neretvanac Opuzen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

question answered

You asked a question here (and ignored the date format in the next edit), but I failed to mention the discussion on the problem editor's article. In short, 1) I want to encourage the editor to start using edit summaries and 2) the staff will be referenced using the staff reference by the start of the season and individual entries do not need references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Walter Görlitz: No worries, just looked to me (entirely from a watchlist point of view) as if an edit which added a reference was reverted only for not using an edit summary. I agree with you we should encourage edit summaries, though. Also since there's no staff reference yet I've got no problem with keeping the reference in there for now, but it doesn't really matter. With regards to the date, apologies, I was on autopilot. SportingFlyer talk 04:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Request on 15:56:48, 19 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Millennialteaching

• Millennialteaching (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Creative Action Methodology (CAM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear SportingFlyer, I read your comments to the article I want to publish on Wikipedia. You write that the article did not include secondary reliable resources. However, all cited sources are published national newspapers, national magazines, book reviews, and specialist journals. Moreover, you stated that the article reads like an essay. I do not understand this comment as this is clearly not an essay. So please clarify your feedback. Millennialteaching (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Millennialteaching (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Millennialteaching: Hi, I did not actually note it did not include secondary reliable sources - the problem with the article as it stands is it reads like an essay which is promoting the idea instead of discussing it in a neutral encyclopedic tone. I did not actually look at the sources, since they are in Dutch and I would have to use a translation service to see if they are reliable or not, and because the references are not inline this makes it more difficult to review the article. Please rewrite the article to be less of an essay and in a neutral encyclopedic tone. Also, it's not technically necessary, but will make it easier to accept the article if the references match the sentence they support and not the paragraph. SportingFlyer talk 17:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Steve Harrison

"Declining submission: athlete - Submission is about an athlete not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" He does pass WP:NHOCKEY actually, he played 21 games in Liiga which is more than enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wesley McPaper (talk • contribs) 18:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Wesley McPaper: My apologies, I thought I had responded to this. It was not at all clear from the article he had appeared in a league which passed WP:NHOCKEY, so I declined. It looks like he played a few games in the Finland top league but no mention of this in the article apart from his list of teams. I'll let someone else accept the article if it's not already accepted. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Paul Pelosi

Quick note, since I see you're doing some expansion there: the contents of the 2009 LA Times and Washington Post articles are effectively the same, since they reprinted the same Les Carpenter AP report. Bakazaka (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bakazaka: Oops. Thanks. I noticed it said Carpenter was an AP reporter, but I didn't check to see if the sources were the same. SportingFlyer talk 04:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The pub dates are different, so I didn't notice at first either. Anyway, thanks for your work expanding the article! Bakazaka (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Typo fix

Hi! Just a quick note that I edited your comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 January 2#List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry from "a difficult AfC" to "a difficult AfD", because I thought it might have been a typo; feel free to revert. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: That's probably correct, thanks! SportingFlyer talk 05:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi SportingFlyer. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, so do check back at WP:PERM/NPR in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Desert Sun Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Fog Robotics

Hi SportingFlyer, I'm new to Wikipedia and made an edit for Fog Robotics. So, can you have a look and let me know if it still needs something?

Thank you Krish1804 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Krish1804: I've rejected the draft, the example section lifted over five sentences of material almost verbatim from two different websites which is unacceptable, so it will need to be removed and rewritten. I have no comment on whether the article is notable, which is what you're ultimately looking for in terms of whether it will ever be accepted or not. The best places to start learning about this would be by following the links to WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Good luck! SportingFlyer talk 21:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: Thank you for your response and suggestions. I edited the article again :) Krish1804 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Supporter groups

There is nothing wrong with citing, linking to supporter group websites, like there is nothing wrong with the use of sources from the clubs own website, it's done all the time. In fact, it's better to have both sources, there-fore you're covering all bases by having a primary and a secondary source. Govvy (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Govvy: Well, secondary sources are always preferred when available. I noticed the edit war on my watchlist and thought adding a secondary source would be a simple solution to keep the content and stop the reversions. I don't mind if you add the primary source back, but I'm not sure it's needed. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I am just not a fan of Walter's editing style. I think it's also ridicules that people would remove non-controversial primary sources. Govvy (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victors FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jinja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Desmond Napoles

Hi @SportingFlyer: How are you? I'm going to hold an Rfc about this. I dont think it is right category to apply to an article about a child. scope_creep^Talk 11:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Scope creep: Hi, have you initiated the RfC? According to the dictionary definition of the term, the category is appropriate (and I don't know why being a child would matter, based on the definition.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: No not yet. If you don't know why it is not suitable, then it is unlikely that I will be able to explain it to you. I really believe categorising a child into an adult category is wrong. I'll kick the RFC off on Sunday. I'll ping you when it is up. scope_creep^Talk 19:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scope creep: The lede of the article is: "Drag queens are people, usually male, who dress in women's clothing and often act with exaggerated femininity and in feminine gender roles with a primarily entertaining purpose." Based on my exposure to it I don't consider it an "adult" activity, and it appears this person has an article specifically because he is a child performer in the area. I don't think we'll come to an agreement here, but I would appreciate a ping when it is up, thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete

According to this, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground (FA), and MANY MORE should be deleted. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Furman University deletion

Hey I’ve reverted your revert on Furman University because you gave faulty reasoning. The reason you gave was “removed unsourced controversy section” but there is a reliable source, it’s even formatted correctly. I do think it probably shouldn’t be it’s own section. Maybe just a sentence near the end of the history section. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted your revert. The source was malformed when I saw it, so it was as good as unsourced, but it's still negative WP:NOTNEWS created by a WP:SPA who has only added controversy sections to Wofford and Furman. I don't mind if you add the source back somewhere else (with prose which uses the source more accurately) if you think it's worth mentioning, but it was not okay as it stood. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Hello! Meant to ask you, since I saw you being around football related AFDs. I found this by chance Ferhat Odabaşı. While I know he is supposed to pass WP:NFOOTY for appearing in a fully professional league, it seems that his sole claim for notability is that he "appeared in 5 matches (which I don't find anything special) for Gençlerbirliği OFTAŞ in Süper Lig before he moved to a non fully professional league". Isn't that a blatant failure of WP:BLP1E? He doesn't seem to have appeared back into Süper Lig AND obviously fails WP:GNG so that can't save him. Pageviews are to no surprise absolutely horrible. https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?pages=Ferhat_Odaba%C5%9F%C4%B1&project=en.wikipedia.org Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: I'm really not worried about that article. We're in the process of determining whether the Turkish second division meets the fully professional league requirement, he otherwise had a lengthy career, and while I don't read Turkish there are a number of non-directory sites which pop up with his name during a quick search, so perhaps it can be sourced. Pageviews are irrelevant for determining notability, and there's a difference between WP:BLP1E and satisfying our notability criteria - he appeared five times, so there's not "one event" he's known for. He's known for being a professional football player over a period of years who happens to qualify under our guidelines, and our guidelines exist so we can easily tell who gets an article and who doesn't when we have an entire world to look after. However, you're not wrong to ask - keep on the lookout for players who pass WP:NFOOTY but can only be sourced to directory websites such as soccerway or national-football-teams. Hope that helps! SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

David Nemer

Hi SportingFlyer. You are one of the editors/voters on the DRV for David Nemer's article. I got a notification that the DRV discussion has been closed, and the conclusion was to let the article to be drafted and, then, have an editor moving it to the main space whenever he/she finds it ready. I have prepared the draft a while ago, and some people went there and also contributed to the article. I have also solicited it to be reviewed, but since you have looked at it before, I was wondering if could you review it and check if you deem it ready? Thanks! --Wikisharktank (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Wikisharktank: Did I previously comment on the article at AfC? I have no recollection of it. I'd prefer if an editor uninvolved at the DRV would take a look, to be honest - I'm not great with WP:PROF articles, and it seems to be written on the promotional side. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1992-93 Croatian Second Football League has been accepted

1992-93 Croatian Second Football League, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Naraht (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Oberlin Academy Preparatory School

Could you explain why you think the accept of Oberlin Academy Preparatory School was a bad one? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Of course. It was declined at AfC twice. Within an hour of the second decline, another AfC reviewer resubmitted the article to AfC after noticing it was declined and accepted without changing a thing: [2] Our standard is likely to pass an AfD, and that article at AfC would be unlikely to pass an AfD without a copious WP:BEFORE search. (I may be wrong if it gets through on some school notability hook, but I always look at references at AfC regardless.) The time I went to accept an article that had been declined, I discussed the article with the user who had just declined it before I went back, added a source or two, and accepted it. It just feels a bit like gaming the system. I have no problem with keeping the current article, which has been vastly improved. SportingFlyer T·C 01:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your thinking and the time you spent writing it out.

I do disagree with your critique, however. I would argue that it's the second decliner who got it wrong, after the sources had be refilled, and perhaps the first. The standard, as you say, isn't what shape it is in. It is whether it is likely to pass an AfD. If this had been made directly in mainspace, never going to AfC, there is a decent chance that a new page reviewer would have nominated it for deletion, but that is no certain thing. And if it goes to AfD, it would likely not have attracted the attention this nomination has, but would still have stood a great chance of surviving - SCHOOLOUTCOMES tells us as much. OUTCOMES isn't a reason to keep at AfD, but it absolutely should be a factor in an AfC reviewer deciding to keep or reject. It reflects what the community does and schools are likely to pass an AfD - as this very article shows.

I would suggest that there is an issue at AfC with rejecting too much stuff - I was saying it while I was a merge on this article and I'm saying it here where I nominated something that had been accepted for deletion. NPP, is where we don't pass the buck. AfC's standard should be lower and any regular good AfC reviewer should, in my opinion, have some number of deleted accepts. If a regular AfC reviewer doesn't have any than the standard they're using is "Will pass an AfD" not the actual standard of "Is likely to pass an AfD". Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I disagree with you on the second decliner getting it wrong, since the only thing that changed between the first submit and the second submit is the bare references were filled in. I agree the AfC standard should be lower than at AfD but I also don't want to accept something that might ultimately be deleted. I'd prefer to have the submitter get it up to standard. Also, in my opinion, it's not the role of an AfC reviewer to make a bad submission good, or to assume a bad submission will survive an AfD. I've done that a couple of times, but it should be optional. SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC

SportingFlyer the AfC standard shouldn't be lower than AfD it is lower than AfD. We should not be holding articles in draft space to make the authors bring it up to the standards we wish they would have. We should be holding articles in draft space until their authors write something that is likely to survive at AfD. That's it. Much of what goes through AfC cannot even do that and of course we should be declining them. But this article, to me, is a perfect example of an article that gets declined against the consensus of the community as expressed in the policy and guidelines. Thanks and Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Ah, your reply stated that "AfC's standard should be lower than AfD," and I agreed. But to be honest, it's difficult in practice. I don't think I've ever accepted an article I would !vote delete on at an AfD. I don't think this elevates the standard to the AfD level, either - I would say the AfC standard is "I would !vote Keep at AfD." There are ways around this too - I find commenting on articles I'm in the grey zone about to be more productive than rejecting or accepting at times, since it gives the creator some feedback, and someone else at AfC a concern to review, as not every AfD vote or AfC review is a clear yes/no keep/delete binary vote. For this article I guess you could argue the first two rejected drafts passed WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2 with the brief book mention, and note part of my feedback here is my general unfamiliarity with the schools guideline. But would it not have been better for the accepting user to try and have a conversation with the two users who rejected the draft? We've now had a lengthy AfD and brief DRV on the subject, and the conflict could have been resolved much more easily. I guess we've at least got a decent article out of it. SportingFlyer T·C 05:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:30:25, 13 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by KyleLes

• KyleLes (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Titan FTP Server (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thanks for your feedback on the Titan FTP Server article. Based on my review of articles on Cerberus FTP Server, which only included references to the vendor's website, and CompleteFTP, which contains no references at all, I thought that I was writing a notable, well-referenced article. There are 2 other servers that I'd like to cover, but I can't even get past my first article. Can you please explain to me why the articles that I've noted meet the guidelines, and mine does not? I'm a new editor, and I'm trying to follow the rules and be a good contributor. I'm a user of this software because it's recommended by Cisco (as noted in my article), but even that doesn't qualify as a notable 3rd party source.

KyleLes (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@KyleLes: Sure! First, we have a rule called "other stuff exists," or WP:OSE - just because another product has an article doesn't mean a similar article will be accepted or notable. Unfortunately, the two articles you've chosen to base your article on are not very good. CompleteFTP should probably be deleted. It was proposed for deletion but the article creator removed it. Cerberus FTP Server was nominated for deletion and kept, but the article was never updated with the sources discovered at the deletion discussion. This wasn't the best discussion in my mind, but here is the discussion demonstrating the sources other users deemed notable: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cerberus_FTP_Server. The Cisco source does not cover TitanFTP significantly (WP:SIGCOV) as it only mentions the name of the FTP server and a link to the company's website - we're looking for independent secondary coverage (articles, books, et cetera.) Please let me know if you have any other questions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green Bay Voyageurs FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chicago Fire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Incorrect league assessment soccer

Hi there, you rejected the Shane McInerney professional soccer player page because you said he never played in a pro league. I’m trying to create pages for Irish players and firstly the Irish league is a pro league with teams competing in Europe league and champions league. As for the list you linked, the player in question has played in the NASL. Which is on the list, even though it’s no longer a league. So he meets the requirement there, and in the leagues which should be on the list. Thanks MonDon2019 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• @MonDon2019: Hi, the Irish league is not in our list of fully professional leagues, required to pass WP:NFOOTY. Also, the Armada did not play in NASL when he played for them but the NPSL. See: [3]. He does not pass WP:NFOOTY and does not appear to otherwise be notable. I would encourage you to continue creating pages for Irish players, but note they do not get automatic notability presumptions. I would look for feature stories written specifically on the player to ensure they would pass a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Of the millions of articles, why did you choose the one that I wrote, J. Kellogg Parsons, to put a deletion notice. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

Criteria

Academics/professors meeting any one (bold is not mine but in the original) of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Please do not cause trouble and AFD it but if you are really in for a fight, I will let you win as I am retiring from Wikipedia. Please don't use this knowledge to take advantage of me. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, why don't you just put an AFD BUT also note that the person meets criteria 5. You can write "I think the person is not notable but I have been informed he does meet criteria 5. Still, I, SportingFlyer, advocate delete" Let the public decide. I may or may not see the AFD. Or let me know that you now believe AFD is not needed. Thanks.Cheesesteak1 (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Artcile marked for deletion

Hello, I noticed you marked my article for deletion. I am wondering what can I improve to not have this article deleted, I have worked on the article for over a week and tried improving. I noticed you marked the reason that I moved it after it was declined, but it was declined for not having enough sources after which I spent loads of edits (clearly visible in the history) adding notable sources and making it read less like an Artcile, I feel like stating that I moved it after it was declined isn't a fair way of putting this since I changed the article a bunch, added new information and backed up the old information with outside sources.

Hope to hear from you soon, thank you !