User talk:Scottywong
| This is Scottywong's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Wiki Loves Pride
| You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride | |
|---|---|
|
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge. In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords. Feel free to showcase your work here!
If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list. | |
IssueTrak - Request for Reconsideration
Message added 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi - I've reworked the IssueTrak page and would value your feedback as you initially deleted the article in 2012. I believe the article meets the requirements for notability and objectivity. Your review, feedback, and ultimate approval of the article would be greatly valued! Thanks, Buffalo747 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Piano rock
The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano rock (2nd nomination) is unsatisfactory; please reconsider. Andrew (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Is there a particular reason that you find it unsatisfactory? Or is it unsatisfactory simply because it's not the way you wanted it to close? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have updated the closing statement with a mention of the specific policy that demands the deletion of that article. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Scotty tools
Hey Scotty, I noticed the other day that scottytools has no ui on labs and the toolserver account has expired. I was wondering if you had any plans on renewing the toolserver or getting things up and running to be able to access your tools on labs? Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can't log in to toolserver to renew my account for some reason, and scottytools was not created by me, and is not maintained by me. I ported some of my tools over to labs, and other editors have ported other tools to labs. Not all of the tools have been migrated. Talk to User:Σ about scottytools, I believe he is maintaining it. The other tools that I ported are here and here. ‑Scottywong| express _ 14:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
How are you going to know how the AfD turns out if you close it the way that you did? Speaking for myself, I closed half a dozen windows regarding this AfD this morning, so I could focus on an AfD that I felt was a higher priority. Do you really want to talk about this, when you can relist? Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Relevant related discussions:
- User_talk:Amatulic#WP:Articles for deletion/Downtown Plaza (Hamilton, New Zealand) regarding this editor's similar objection to another article I deleted.
- WP:REFUND#Westshore Town Centre, request for undeletion without first waiting for a reply to the query to you above.
- Just FYI. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the top of this page you will see that this admin is semi-retired. If you look at the contributions history, you will see that he is gone for days at a time. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...and Scottywong was just here yesterday. Scottywong, would you respond? As I explained to Unscintillating at WP:REFUND#Westshore Town Centre, administrators generally do not override the decisions of other administrators, particularly AFD decisions, without discussion on the admin's talk page or DRV. Do you object to restoring the deleted history under the existing redirect? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I completely missed this message last time I checked in here. The only thing I'm not clear on is why you want to restore the article history. What's the purpose; what do you plan on doing with it? ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Unscintillating:, this is a question for you, not me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amatulic, If this is deemed to be a non-controversial refund, my discussion with the closing admin becomes moot. If it is deemed to be controversial, then I have exhausted a potential remedy, and made a good faith effort in his absence to find a simple solution...and I can wait for a reply upon his return, go to WP:DRV, or consider other alternatives including doing nothing. This is the answer to your question, as to why I requested the WP:REFUND. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Unscintillating: It is never uncontroversial to unilaterally overturn an AFD decision without discussion. The first thing to be done is talk to the deleting admin, who is active, and not go to other administrators due to a personal perception of what "semi retired" might mean. OK, we're discussing it. Scottywong asked you a direct question: What is the purpose of restoring the history, and what do you plan to do with it? You have not explained that yet, either here or at WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- As to your question about my "plans", I think you are asking a hypothetical about something that has already been asked and answered. My "plans" are really more an expectation, one already stated that "my discussion with the closing admin becomes moot".
- @Unscintillating: It is never uncontroversial to unilaterally overturn an AFD decision without discussion. The first thing to be done is talk to the deleting admin, who is active, and not go to other administrators due to a personal perception of what "semi retired" might mean. OK, we're discussing it. Scottywong asked you a direct question: What is the purpose of restoring the history, and what do you plan to do with it? You have not explained that yet, either here or at WP:REFUND. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amatulic, If this is deemed to be a non-controversial refund, my discussion with the closing admin becomes moot. If it is deemed to be controversial, then I have exhausted a potential remedy, and made a good faith effort in his absence to find a simple solution...and I can wait for a reply upon his return, go to WP:DRV, or consider other alternatives including doing nothing. This is the answer to your question, as to why I requested the WP:REFUND. Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...and Scottywong was just here yesterday. Scottywong, would you respond? As I explained to Unscintillating at WP:REFUND#Westshore Town Centre, administrators generally do not override the decisions of other administrators, particularly AFD decisions, without discussion on the admin's talk page or DRV. Do you object to restoring the deleted history under the existing redirect? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you look at the top of this page you will see that this admin is semi-retired. If you look at the contributions history, you will see that he is gone for days at a time. Unscintillating (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- As to your question about the purposes of restoring a Wikipedia edit history, that sounds like something that could have its own WP: page, but I didn't see anything with a quick search. It is a part of WP:ATD and WP:Editing policy, where it is used with merger. A restored edit history means that the edits of content contributors are no longer listed as part of the "deleted edits" count, and non-admins can research the diffs. Attribution from the edit history is part of our licensing. Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Scottywong, At WP:REFUND, Amatulic has stated , "...this page is for requesting uncontroversial restorations only." Yet after five days he/she has not closed the WP:REFUND request as controversial. It occurs to me there is another path forward, which is a variation of my initial request. Please consider reverting your closing and instead relisting the AfD. Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't heard any reasonable justification for either restoring the edit history or reverting the closing of the AfD. Sorry. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Amatulic has made a decision at WP:REFUND, that being "Not done". Unscintillating (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
AfD for Factlet
Hello, Scottywong. I believe your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factlet mischaracterizes the discussion. (Though, of course, you should note my keep !vote in the discussion.) While there are indeed 5 votes citing WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, they are votes as opposed to !votes; they make no argument or reference to the article, but merely name the policy. One of the five voters, Ad Orientem, later added a comment, while slakr make a substantive argument for "Delete or Merge to Factoid." The nominator, LtPowers, also made a policy-based assertion, that the word is a neologism, though this and LtPowers' later assertion that William Safire coined the word was contested in argument with other commenters.
On the other hand, five participants made substantial arguments either to keep the article or to merge it with Factoid. I discount one additional keep !vote that appears to be based on personal opinion.
Obviously, your judgement of the arguments may differ from mine, but your comment on closing, "No evidence that an article on this topic can ever be more than a dictionary definition," appears to ignore not only the arguments in the discussion but also the article content – including at least three secondary sources discussing the word, and perhaps more that I can't see since the page was deleted – that already expanded the article beyond a definition.
It is my personal opinion that temporary un-deletion and then merger to Factoid is appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to restore the article to your userspace for the purpose of merging it, if that is acceptable to you. ‑Scottywong| express _ 20:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be fine. Do you know whether I need to note anything in particular for licensing and attribution if I merge content from the userfied page? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Restored to User:Cnilep/Factlet. I don't think you need to worry about anything related to licensing or attribution. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be fine. Do you know whether I need to note anything in particular for licensing and attribution if I merge content from the userfied page? Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me for butting in, but I restored some of the deleted factlet material to the current factoid article, hopefully helpfully. Wondering if it is okay if I do a redirect page of Factlet => Factoid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. No need to ask for permission to do that. ‑Scottywong| express _ 13:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me for butting in, but I restored some of the deleted factlet material to the current factoid article, hopefully helpfully. Wondering if it is okay if I do a redirect page of Factlet => Factoid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
AFD close
Hi mate, would you consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Commission of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, London rather than closing it? The discussion there highlighted the lack of a merge target, though that has been the common outcome for such articles. I created an article for the sole purpose of being a suitable merge target only hours before you closed it. Your reading of the consensus isn't wrong, I just think even a couple more days would allow that merge option to be considered (now that a suitable target exists). Any chance? St★lwart111 09:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think the closure was appropriate - it had already been relisted twice - which means that you are free to carry out or suggest any moves, merges, or redirects that may be suitable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely - the close was entirely appropriate. I'm just not inclined to now unilaterally redirect the article given the no consensus close. My alternative would be to open another AFD or propose a redirect on the article talk page and invite those who participated in the discussion. I don't mind that either but I thought another re-list would be a better alternative for gathering consensus. I'm certainly not proposing to take it to DRV. Kudpung, if you have another alternative again, please feel free to suggest one - certainly open to any other ideas! Cheers, St★lwart111 10:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:RELIST, AfD's shouldn't be relisted more than twice. If I were you, I'd boldly merge the article, and if anyone objects, start a discussion. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay, bit more bold than I'm usually inclined to be but I'll go for it. Thanks for your guidance. Cheers, St★lwart111 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Per WP:RELIST, AfD's shouldn't be relisted more than twice. If I were you, I'd boldly merge the article, and if anyone objects, start a discussion. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
A table showing the old Toolserver tool and its replacement
I started this table, and was wondering if you'd be so kind as to help fill it in a bit.
Link: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements
Other replacements
A replacement for http://stats.grok.se/ can now be found at https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/.
Notes
If it exists already somewhere, please say and I'll delete it. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- User:Σ might be able to help you with this, if he hasn't already. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about WP:Articles for deletion/Westshore Town Centre
- I don't understand why you closed this AfD as you did. An hour and a half before your closure, the discussion was deciding between a merge or redirect to Langford, British Columbia, and the policy arguments showed that there was no theoretical possibility of a delete. Your closure occurred one hour and ten minutes after a delete !vote posted, which if that influenced your close did not allow time for analysis and a reply. Do you have a problem with relisting? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- "...the policy arguements showed that there was no theoretical possibility of a delete." Where do you come up with this stuff? Between this thread and the earlier one you posted on my talk page above, I still haven't heard any reasonable arguments that would compel me to change the way I closed the AfD. If you continue to believe that I did not close it correctly, please take it to WP:DRV to get more opinions. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- To your question, the AfD has the statement, "...as per WP:ATD...the topic was not eligible for deletion for non-notability at the time of the nomination.". Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- If I have to take this to DRV, it would be helpful if you would explain the consensus that you saw. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- An issue for DRV is why you closed this as delete when you saw material for a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have another question about your close. It appears that you are suggesting merge and re-delete (see WP:MAD), which appears to create an attribution problem. Do you have a comment on this? Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Unscintillating: can you explain why you have such a strong interest in a stub article about a rather ordinary shopping mall? ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- To answer your question, I'm not aware that I do or do not have a "strong interest in a stub article about a rather ordinary shopping mall". IMO, it should be sufficient that there is no policy basis for deletion; while there is a policy basis to retain content contributions, in both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, and that we are here to build an encyclopedia. As for "stub article", I don't have access to the article, and at this point I don't recall that it is or is not a stub. If you are asking if I have a COI, I don't recall having heard of Langford, much less any shopping centres in Langford. As for whether or not this topic is "rather ordinary", http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/regional-shopping-center/4965203-1.html shows that this topic is a "regional shopping center", and [1] shows that larger centers of this size are roughly somewhere between the top 10% to top 1% of centers. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see anything at WP:ATD that says, "If the topic of an article is mentioned in another article, then you may not delete the article on that topic." There is no policy that prohibits the deletion of an article based on it being mentioned in another article.
- To answer your question, I'm not aware that I do or do not have a "strong interest in a stub article about a rather ordinary shopping mall". IMO, it should be sufficient that there is no policy basis for deletion; while there is a policy basis to retain content contributions, in both WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, and that we are here to build an encyclopedia. As for "stub article", I don't have access to the article, and at this point I don't recall that it is or is not a stub. If you are asking if I have a COI, I don't recall having heard of Langford, much less any shopping centres in Langford. As for whether or not this topic is "rather ordinary", http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/regional-shopping-center/4965203-1.html shows that this topic is a "regional shopping center", and [1] shows that larger centers of this size are roughly somewhere between the top 10% to top 1% of centers. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- "...the policy arguements showed that there was no theoretical possibility of a delete." Where do you come up with this stuff? Between this thread and the earlier one you posted on my talk page above, I still haven't heard any reasonable arguments that would compel me to change the way I closed the AfD. If you continue to believe that I did not close it correctly, please take it to WP:DRV to get more opinions. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I closed the AfD as "delete" because that is how I gauged the consensus of the discussion. While it's true that there was only one voter who bolded the word delete in their comments, all of the other AfD participants (except you) mentioned that the subject of the article is not notable enough for its own article. As you know, the closing admin is not required to count bolded votes when closing an AfD, he/she is required to gauge the overall consensus of the entire discussion. Since everyone didn't agree on exactly what to do with this article on a non-notable subject (delete it, redirect it, or merge it), I made the executive decision to delete the article; I made it clear that replacing it with a redirect was ok; and I politely offered to restore the article if anyone needed any information from it to merge into another article. I did this because I found it to be more useful and efficient than declaring that there was no consensus just because there wasn't strong agreement on exactly what to do with the article, while there was strong agreement that it isn't notable enough for its own article.
- If you are aware of a specific attribution problem as a result of this deletion, please let me know and we can correct the attribution problem. But, please don't try use a non-existent attribution problem as an excuse to overturn the results of an AfD with which you disagree.
- It should be clear by now that I am not interested in changing the closure of the AfD. If you would like to debate this further, then please take it to WP:DRV. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 02:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Even though you warned him he is still adding speedy deletion tags but now he is saying he is a banned user. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Scottywong, you are a spoiler! Delete this article or suffer the consequences! AaronWikia (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- He got his wish, he is now a blocked user. For 24 hours. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 00:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"Nabi Su" deleted - What Happens Next?
The page "Nabi Su" was deleted by you. The deletion discussion, I believe, was on-going, and I was making changes to address editors' concerns. When the article was approved, it was a "Class C" - not a bad rating. I was working to make improvements that the Martial Arts Portal recommends. What happened? Why did you delete it, how can I get a copy of it, and what should I do next? Mary Vaccaro (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Mary Vaccaro: The article was deleted because it can't be adequately shown that Nabi Su is a notable topic that deserves an article. The word "notable" is defined very strictly on Wikipedia and has a very specific meaning, you can read more about it at WP:N, among other places. In general, you must be able to show that the topic (Nabi Su) has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If you believe that this can be done, then I am willing to restore the article to your userspace so that you can work on it and eventually resubmit it as an article. If you don't believe that adequate sources exist on this topic, then any further work you put into writing the article will likely be a waste of time, as Wikipedia does not allow articles on non-notable subjects. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 04:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Reply to Scottywong: Thank you for the quick reply. The sources I cited for the Nabi Su article include a 1968 "Popular Science" article, which is a reliable, notable source. The article is six pages long and is exclusively about a reporter's perceptions and experiences of Min Pai and the Nabi Su school, which was then called the "Yun Mu Kwan Karate Institute." (The name was changed in the late 1980s to "Nabi Su.") The Nabi Su style, and in particular, its evolution and mix with ZaZen and Tai Chi was discussed in Lawrence Shainberg's "Ambivalent Zen: A Memoir" published in 1996 by Random House, in hardback, and still in print in paperback editions. This is another reliable, notable source. I believe several of the AfD commentators did not read the Popular Science article (which is available in full on-line and which is cited), and were not able to read the cited sections in the "Ambivalent Zen" book (which is not available on-line.) Other sources are also cited. I believe some of the problem is that this hybrid martial art style has an unusual history, it is over 55 years old, and the supporting documents are wide ranging: An article by Popular Science about this new "Karate" - something relatively unknown to its audience in 1968; Ramon Korff's photographic documents of a famous Roshi's visit when he consecrated the school as a Zendo; a memoir about a student's search for Zen and the path that led him to study at Min Pai's school, first as a zen student, then as a Tai Chi student, then as a Kung Fu student of the new combined hybrid martial art that was created by Pai. (The student eventually dropped out - continuing his search for a purer Zen experience.) These are not "martial arts" specific sources. They are popular culture sources. Some of Korff's photos made it to the "El Dia" newspaper in Puerto Rico. Another photographer and reporter wrote a short article about Min Pai in a Connecticut newspaper, now defunct. In that article, (which one AfD commentator ridiculed), Pai was sending "energy." Whether or not one agrees with Pai's purported ability to "transfer energy," the fact is, Pai included this as a feature of his new style, and a reporter from the Fairfield press took a photo and wrote a short article about the subject, claiming he saw the "transfer of energy." I look forward to improving the article and better describing the context of the sources I have cited. Please let me know what advice you have.
Mary Vaccaro (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
DRV
[[2]] I'm not sure there is anything you can do about this but the deletion discussion was clearly off base. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| For your work on some particularly tricky AfDs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Murić
I'd be interested if you could explain your "no consensus" close of this AFD - five people calling for deletion (including me, the nominator) and three calling for it to be kept. Of the three 'keepers', one said it should be kept because he will be notable in the future (violating WP:CRYSTAL) and the other two stated the article met GNG. However all five calling for deletion stated GNG was not met. To me that indicates a consensus... GiantSnowman 11:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The AFD was close enough that the vote totals (i.e., 5 to 3) didn't much matter. I looked at each side's rationale. As you said, one side claimed that he doesn't meet GNG, the other side claimed that he does. So, at that point I need to look at the strength of each side's argument. The keep voters show that there are quite a lot of sources showing that Murić has been signed to a team in the top tier Dutch league, along with rumors that other top teams (like Manchester United and Chelsea) had been courting him. Google News shows 20+ articles on him in the last few weeks. Most of them are about the recent transfer to Ajax, and most (but not all) are Croatian sources. There was coverage of him before the transfer took place, and more coverage after it was confirmed he was going to Ajax. In any case, I felt that the sources that were provided at the AFD generated enough doubt that the non-notability argument was valid in this case. On the other hand, I don't think the sources provided were necessarily strong enough to close the discussion with a Keep result. Thus, no consensus. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The coverage before the transfer was not "significant" - it's all "young prospect linked to big club", we see hundreds of those pieces churned out all the time, the BBC even has a gossip column where it collates them! It's all WP:ROUTINE stuff. As for the stuff about the transfer, again it's not significant, and it's all a case of WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- How often do you see coverage about a 17-year-old being courted by the likes of Man U, Chelsea, Borussia Dortmund, Ajax, etc., and being valued at €6million+? The argument that the coverage is routine isn't convincing enough to me to result in the deletion of the article. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- All the time - seeing as I edit almost exclusively in football and have done for 8+ years. Just ask anyone at WT:FOOTBALL if you don't believe me. In the meantime I'll probably be taking this matter to DRV. GiantSnowman 18:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- How often do you see coverage about a 17-year-old being courted by the likes of Man U, Chelsea, Borussia Dortmund, Ajax, etc., and being valued at €6million+? The argument that the coverage is routine isn't convincing enough to me to result in the deletion of the article. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- The coverage before the transfer was not "significant" - it's all "young prospect linked to big club", we see hundreds of those pieces churned out all the time, the BBC even has a gossip column where it collates them! It's all WP:ROUTINE stuff. As for the stuff about the transfer, again it's not significant, and it's all a case of WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 17:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Robert Murić. 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. GiantSnowman 18:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)