User talk:Fbryce

No, see the WikiProject Football's list of fully professional leagues for sourcing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Magic Roundabout (Colchester) 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/Magic Roundabout (Colchester) 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. GDallimore (Talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the football specific notability guideline explicitly excludes players in his situation. A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. If and when he makes his debut in the Danish Super League, he will become notable and can be restored, but until then there should be no article on him. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fbryce. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Transreption, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: subject is clear - this new word. Fails WP:V and WP:NEO, but these are not speedy reasons. . Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Justin Duerr, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, please to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you feel it should be deleted. Fbryce (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fbryce. When you dePRODded the article, your edit summary said that you disagreed with my rationale, but didn't say why. No matter. Do you think that significant coverage has been published in multiple reliable sources? If so: Do you have citations handy? If not: Why do you think the article should be kept? I humbly request that you please reply by moving this conversation back to my talk page. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LogX. Thank you for patrolling new pages. Of all the voluntary work editors do, NPP is among the most important because not only is it the the first firewall against unwanted pages in mainspace, but equally important, it is the earliest opportunity to provide a welcome to users who are not sure about, or who are not even aware of our policies at this stage. I appreciate your enthusiasm to jump right in and help control the quality of our pages, but I think that with only 170 edits to mainspace it would be a good idea for you to stop patrolling pages for a while, at least until you have read and fully understood WP:NPP and WP:DELETION. I know it's a lot to read, but if you do, you would be on the way to being a great patroller. If ever you need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your closure just happened to be appropriate within the rules at WP:NAC. However, with only 170 edits to mainspace, I do not think this is an area you should be concentrating on yet, especially as you are not fully conversant with notability and deletion policies. There's a lot of other great work you could be doing for a while such as building content, and by doing so, you will gather the required experience on the way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You recently(ish) deleted a BLPROD notice on the page Jack Whitlock. However, although sources were added to the article, none of them mention Jack Whitlock, so the BLPROD template should not be removed. I have readded it, and since the deadline has expired, it is likely that the page will be deleted. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]