User talk:Fenix down

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk

Ciarán Kilduff[edit]

On Ciarán Kilduff's article for deletion you said:

  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Restoration rationale is flawed, **consensus is that european appearances only count towards NFOOTY if a) **they are in the competition propoer**, not qualifying rounds, and b) they are in matches between teams both of who play in FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    • since he has appeared AND scored in the competition proper, helping Dundalk become the first Irish team to gain a draw/point in the competition "proper" with hits of 130,000 and the story being reported in all across Europe, is he notable enough now? Many Irish people are hearing about this fella in the news having scored this famous goal, do a search expecting a wikipedia type article to get more encyclopedic information on his background. The original article is still intact, is easily sourced and is notable enough now. Fredbobhurst (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fred, I would make several observations:
  1. Firstly, playing in the competition proper is only relevant per WP:NFOOTY when the player involved is playing for a team in a fully professional league against a club from another FPL. As Dundalk are not in an agreed FPL, and he has not played senior international football or in an FPL for any other team, he cannot fulfil NFOOTY.
  2. As such, he will need to satisfy GNG. I would caution that the achievements of Dundalk as a team should not be misconstrued as conferring notability on the individual players involved per WP:NOTINHERITED. Those players still need sufficient significant, independent coverage on themselves to satisfy GNG. This however does not mean he cannot be notable, nor that his European exploits have not now generated sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG.
  3. I would further caution against using google hits as a determinate of notability.
I have recently undeleted an article on Sean Gannon, where another editor was able to present additional sources on the player specifically which indicated GNG. I would recommend that you have a look at this article if you have not already to gain an understanding of what sources are generally acceptable. If you can then indicate to me what sources you would propose to use to indicate GNG, I would be happy to restore the article to your userspace so you could work on it and then get it back in the mainspace.
This wouldn't be a confirmation of GNG however, it could end up at AfD again, but if you think he has received significant coverage then it is worth another crack. As a word of caution, I would advise against using match reporting, stat sites, etc to indicate GNG as consensus is that these are not sufficient as they are neither significant coverage, nor sufficiently focused on the player in general. Happy to answer any questions you might have. Fenix down (talk) 10:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fenix. I had put a note on @Malcolmxl5: (the admin who deleted the page before) page and @IrishTennis: has also requested the same player's article to be restored. I was hoping that the coverage that he has enjoyed including internationally headlines, personal awards, and a full piece which is not a match report featuring a full interview with Kilduff for a national paper, I was hoping this would be enough to make him notable. Please let me know if you need anything else.
So I thought I had saved the article combing that i did last night but apparently not.
  • basically the more recent GNG sourcing can be divided between match reports which mention him in the headline and give him alot of credit (ie emphasisnig his importance) for the historic win, obviously there are several from the Irish media but here are non Irish articles demonstrating GNG beyond merely passing irish interest. 1, 2, 3.
  • Then there are interviews with him post game as above, 4.
  • But there is also a narrative surrounding his recovery from a bad back injury in order to play (having just missed the Legia Warsaw game was also newsworthy, he was interviewed by rte prior to these games also.). 5, 6, 7.
  • These are all taken from articles a google search of "Ciarán Kilduff" in the title (ie I have done minimal searching, I could go older or look for specific events etc), there are obviously older articles prior to this year detailing his importance for the team etc especially from irish media but as you can see, he is considered very newsworthy in mainstream, reputable irish papers (not just random online blogs) & he is being mentioned in non-irish media also. Fredbobhurst (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fred, sorry for the delay in replying, has this been restored to your user space at all? If not, let me know and I will do so, the refs you have provided above seem to indicate GNG to me. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesnt seem so, no. The "deleted" page from googles caches has also disappeared. Thanks Fredbobhurst (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Here are a few more articles which may be useful to reference when you are touching up the article. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Good luck! --IrishTennis (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fred, sorry for the delay, I have been a bit forgetful about this. I have restored the article to your userspace here. Please note that whilst you are free to move to the mainspace once you feel you have satisfied GNG, the restoration to your userspace is not confirmation of notability. However, the links both you and IrishTennis (thanks for these btw) do seem to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Fenix down. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

uwcl again[edit]

So I ask about restoring that 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League again (better: moving the userfied version to mainspace). Yesterday the English champions were decided. People are interested in the article now. Changes to version mentioned in deletion review are +five teams, +final stadium known, plus UEFA mentioning the next edition on official channels. It is definitely "going ahead". -Koppapa (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Steven McKagen for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven McKagen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven McKagen until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)