User talk:BeanieFan11/Archive 3

DYK for Steve Jastrzembski
—valereee (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Navboxes
Hey, can you make Navboxes for the D2 championship NDSU teams in 1968 and 1969 there are at least five assistants on those teams who Ali have their own wiki pages Bigmike2346 (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you show me the ones with articles? Thanks. BTW if you want to you could make them with the following code:


 * BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m not using a computer and have never made one so I’m unsure how to create it but here is 1968

Category:North Dakota State Bison football navigational boxes Bigmike2346 (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think its ready to be published. Just remember to add the navbox to the bottom of each of their articles and put "Template:" before the title of the page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I added one more name, and how do I publish a navbox? Bigmike2346 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * similar to when making an article, click on Template:1968 NDSU Bison football navbox, and it should say "Creating Template:1965 NDSU Bison football navbox". Then paste the content of the navbox listed above and click "publish". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Bigmike2346 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Earl Ettenhaus
This is an example of a one-gamer where I've been unable to find even non-significant coverage, let alone SIGCOV. A redirect to the list would make sense IMO if there is no SIGCOV. Let me know if you are able to find anything. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ...sigh... I was not able to find much, though I did find several mentions in articles on the game he played in. Before you start redirecting these, I want to contact the Pro Football Researchers Association, to see if they can find anything else. I also contacted Pro-Football-Reference.com, but have yet to get a reply. I do think the article (though short) is superior to an entry on a list, and as this is an encyclopedia think it should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with an article
Hi again! I wanted to see if you could take a look at my sandbox for some help... I am trying to create a page for Shepherd Rams 2019 football team, and I have an issue with the table. It doesn't seem to want to format for me. Can you take a look and let me know what the issue may be? I'm not well versed with tables. Thank you for your help! My sandbox is here. Spf121188 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I found the issue, it was that "Robert B. Redman Stadium" was not linked properly, the ending two "]]" were missing, which messes up templates. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU SO MUCH! That was driving me crazy. I appreciate it! Spf121188 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you also for any help you can provide to the article. This is only my second article created so I appreciate it! Spf121188 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your page views
The Userviews tool shows that articles you created on Wikipedia have received  386,803 views since 11/20/2020. Here are your top 10 most-viewed creations:

If you're interested in the complete list, it can be seen here.Cbl62 (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Vainowski
You mentioned at the Vainowski deletion review that PFR confirmed the various Vainowskis are one and the same. Can you clarify this? Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I sent them a message showing the Newspaper clippings, and they updated his page by adding "Loyola" and "238 pounds". See . BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wisconsin–Stevens Point Pointers
The tag is there to assist other editors in improving the article. Your removal of it without improvement is harmful. If you want to remove the tag, simply add 3 in-depth sources from independent, reliable sources (such as you can find at Newspapers.com) about the athletic program, which is what the article is about, not about the individual teams.  Onel 5969  TT me 22:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article needs more sources, then you should add the {More citations needed} tag, not notability. It easily meets the notability requirements, and so, the tag should not remain. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

2013 Shepherd page
Hi BeanieFan! I'm sorry to bother you, but can you check out this draft ? Sometimes a second set of eyes is helpful. I know I could have created the article without going through AfC, but since it's pending approval already, you've always been helpful with improving these drafts. I'd appreciate it! Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! It looks pretty good to me, the only possible issues were very minor. BTW you can fix bare URLs with this tool. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh perfect! That's super helpful, I'll keep that tool in mind; I'm planning on creating a few more individual Shepherd seasons that are notable (their playoff seasons I think reach the level of GNG.) I'm also planning on working on the draft for their football program. Sorry I hadn't gotten around much to that yet, but I'll get to it for sure. Spf121188 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johnny Roepke
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Johnny Roepke you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Maritime Privateers, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 Onel 5969  TT me 01:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you explain this message? I don't recall marking that page (or any other page in general) as "reviewed". BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive draft moves
Please stop undermining WP:SIGCOV and the whole point of draft space. Routine match coverage is not sufficient to meet GNG, on top of all of the run-of-the-mill issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC) , I'm not sure that Beanie is undermining WP:SIGCOV at all. The publications used as sources on this article meet the SIGCOV guidelines in that we don't have to do any original research to substantiate the content. I'm not sure why you seem so passionate about this particular article, but Beanie is absolutely correct when he says there are several other teams/seasons (even in D2) that have well sourced article space. Like I said in the AfD, there is a little bit of WP:FANCRUFT in the article, but not enough to warrant the article being deleted. Spf121188 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving it to main space wasn't really "disruptive" at all. And coverage like I've shown for USD and Whitewater is usually considered significant in CFB. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving a just declined draft to mainspace without really improving it is disruptive. What is "CFB"? I don't know about that, what I do know is that stuff like this (a match report) is not SIGCOV. And I know that stuff like "Led by third-year coach Beanie Cooper, the Coyotes compiled an overall record of 5–6 and a mark of 3–3 in conference play, placing seventh in the NCC." is not the same thing as "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players" RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually did improve it, so you're point of "moving a just declined draft to mainspace without really improving it is disruptive" is invalid. And "CFB" refers to college football. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding newspapers reports without adding any prose is not "improving". It's "making it look like it's been improved without adding any actual content" (not that there is much content to add from newspapers match reports, anyways...). I don't know why these would be "usually considered enough" when NSEASONS (quoted above) explicitly says the opposite. Or is this a place where the NSPORTS guideline is actually tight enough but people are ignoring it in practice? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How is "not adding any actually content"? BTW, WP has many articles on Division-I football team seasons (South Dakota is currently Division-I), a lot of which are very similar in content and have similar amounts of coverage. See WikiProject College football/Season articles campaign. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is having all these statistical database dumps really an "improvement" and a good way to cover the topic? This isn't an improvement, it doesn't add any new information (even the newspapers match reports are not really "new information" - ok, I guess, dedicated college football fans can now go read over those, but it remains content woefully unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and isn't used to verify any of the information anyway, which all comes from some database or another), it just takes what is already obvious from the rest (and already contained in the infobox) and expands it into a few sentences (which don't add anything to the article). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Carl Etelman
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Ching Hammill
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vainowski DRV
With the Vainowski DRV resulting in an "endorse" result, are you ok with my creating a redirect to the one-gamers list? Any chance you'd also consider changing your "delete" vote on the one-gamers list? It's really ideally suited to players like Vainowski. Cbl62 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not just yet. I still plan on doing one more thing to try to get Vainowski back on WP... :) On the AFD, I don't see a guideline that could support keeping it besides IAR; however, I don't feel like voting "keep–IAR" on something that old NFL players will be redirected to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC) BTW, when SIGCOV is found on Vainowski, can I open a new DRV or do I have to do something else?
 * Understood. If you find SIGCOV (in multiple, reliable sources) on Vainowski, the general practice would be to present your findings and make an appeal to the admin who closed the AfD. If that admin says "no", you might be able to open a new DRV, but I'm not sure about that; don't know if a second DRV is allowed on the same AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Ching Hammill
I have some questions at Talk:Ching Hammill about the use of [sic] in that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Berkeley Codd has been accepted
 Berkeley Codd, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Berkeley_Codd help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! S0091 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johnny Roepke
The article Johnny Roepke you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Johnny Roepke for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2006 Shepherd article
Hi BeanieFan! Can you take a look at this page and see if you can figure out why it looks like there is empty space at the very top of the page? I can't seem to figure out how to fix that if it's an issue. I appreciate it! Spf121188 (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Johnny Roepke
The article Johnny Roepke you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Johnny Roepke for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muboshgu -- Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Jim McCanless
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jamie Fitzgerald (American football), you may be blocked from editing. ''You are well aware of community consensus on this (you don't need a reminder of this, do you). Ignoring it is becoming borderline disruptive.'' RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

WP:BEFORE
"D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". The issue is not really that the subjects might or might not be notable (some of them are more likely than not, but that's only a secondary issue here). The real, main issue is that these articles are all WP:NOTDATABASE violations, as they are indeed all entirely based on databases, and they're all of the cookie-cutter identical format $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2]. That the subjects have a hypothetical chance of meeting GNG does not mean that the current incarnation of these articles is acceptable, or that they get an indefinite exemption from meeting any encyclopedic inclusion criterion. Since these articles were created in quick succession two months ago, and since their creator has shown no sign that he is going to improve them now or ever, and since they currently fail the inclusion criteria, it is entirely reasonable to put them up for deletion. This isn't done to "delete" the articles. It's done to improve the encyclopedia, by removing sub-standard content. If somebody has the time and effort to spend on looking for sources for these articles, that's fine by me, and even the preferred outcome. But since there is no evidence of such, and since article space should present articles to readers in an at least reasonably complete form, then there's simply no justification for keeping these as is.

I also find it funny that people complain about supposed lack of BEFORE, but are seemingly perfectly fine with people creating articles without doing BEFORE, and then justify keeping those on the grounds that "nominator hasn't done before". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I think you deserve one of these too! BTW, let me know if you've done any articles on American footballers or Delaware athletes and I'll expand them/find sources, so that hopefully none of those ridiculous deletionists will target them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem. There is almost certainly some Olympians from Delaware that I've started knocking around. As for American football - that's one area I know I've done no work on whatsoever, as I have no knowledge about it! Although I have heard there's some big match happening today, but keep that under your hat... :D  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I second the barnstar. You just improved an article that nobody thought was salvageable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Two articles
Hi BeanieFan! I'm sorry to bother you, but I WP:PRODed two article today (didn't send them to AfD.) The article are Dave Grosz and Pete Gales. I didn't want to jump the gun on another AfD (which I feel foolish for,) but is there any way you could possibly check Newspapers.com for additional coverage on these two? I appreciate your help! SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 19:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I deproded Grosz, as he played in the CFL and meets WP:NGRIDIRON (and prods are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletion, meeting NSPORTS will make it controversial). If you still believe he is non-notable, you may nominate him at AFD, but I will note that Newspapers.com brings up nearly 21,000 18,000 results for "Dave Grosz" (see https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=dave+grosz). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's why I asked! I did apply for newspapers.com access today, so I'll hopefully be able to handle these things on my own, but I may pay for access even if I don't receive it through the Library. I won't send Grosz to AfD, especially with that many search results. I appreciate you helping me out. SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 20:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I deproded Gales as well, as he also played in the CFL (see my edit summary in the deprod). I'd suggest you wait to get Newspapers.com access before nominating any other old-player articles for PROD/AFD. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons why I asked. I hope you know I wasn't acting in bad faith with these, which is why I came to you (yes, I should have come to you beforehand, that's my mistake.) I know there's tension around users who are passionate about deleting articles because they believe that policies and guidelines that establish notability are too lenient, but I'm not one of them. If notability is demonstrated, I typically reverse course. But, as you mentioned, perhaps I was a little too bold, but just know I'm not one of the "deletionists." With that in mind, I'll certainly wait to get Newspapers.com access, or I'll come to you first (as long as you don't mind.) SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 20:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll also add, I think I misunderstood the difference between PROD and AfD... So that's something I'll refresh on. SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 20:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you always act in good faith :) and I appreciate that you're willing to reconsider in deletion discussions (unlike the user who started the discussion two above, who seems to always call someone a "nonsense wikilawyer" (what does that even mean?) when you disagree with him). And I would be fine if you come to me when you're unsure of a topic's notability (for I often find it fun to search for sources) . BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough :) I just wanted to make sure. And to your point, I have no idea what Wikilawering is, buuutttt, when I look back, their arguments are clearly that WP policy for notability is wrong... which AfD isn't the place to discuss that, so they are the ones "wikilawyering". It was dizzying for a while to read through and it would get confusing, but I always try to keep an open mind. The bottom line is though, that you're right, NGRIDIRION is all the athletes need to pass. I do appreciate your help, I'll let you know if I need anything especially before I get access to newspapers.com! SPF121188  (tell me!) (contribs) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi again BeanieFan! Sorry to bother your talk page, but I wanted to let you know that I received access to Newspapers.com, and I might need some help with how to perform more refined searches so that I don't get a ton of irrelevant clippings. It seems that's what's happening when I run searches now. It seems to mainly occur when I'm searching for soemthing where I have two separate words/names. Maybe it's just something I'll get used to, but wanted to give you a heads up if I need to ask for help. Thanks!! SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 17:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say depending on what you are searching you might want to take a different approach. Adding dates (e.g. 1900 to 1915 in the "date or range" box) can help for certain topics, specifically if the regular search is bringing up a similarly named person from a different period. Another thing that may help is narrowing it down to a certain location (e.g. Delaware). If you want to have results listed for two or more words in that exact order next to each other, type in your search with quotes around the words (but I will note that doesn't work very well for pre-1940s papers). If you're searching for someone with a common name, say, the football player John Smith, in addition to the quotes around person's name you might also want to add the name of the team he played for or another word related to the person. Hope that helps. One more thing, Newspapers.com is pretty much limited to English papers in US, along with a few in Canada, Australia, and Britain (plus one in Panama), so it is not good at finding SIGCOV for foreign/non-English people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Falling on deaf ears
Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. And I don't need to remind you that encyclopedias are written based on secondary sources, not on primary sources published by closely related groups... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * See my edit summary in the revert. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
This edit restored content at NSPORTS against consensus at Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, specifically subproposals #3 and #8. The closing statement currently stands, as it has not been overturned. Please consider this your final warning; any further attempts to restore the non-consensus version after page protection is lifted will be reported to ANI. Thank you. –dlthewave ☎ 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a consensus (at least sub 3 wasn't) and several users have agreed with me. Plus, prior to that, NSPORT did not make any sense, and so I believe it was acceptable to revert. And a further discussion about how to re-write it is surely needed, for letting the deletionists do everything is clearly not going to work. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Jack Hill (footballer, born 2003)
Should the Jack hill article be considered notable? One of the refs is certainly unreliable, with an out-of-date design and describing itself as an "unofficial" guide that is a self-published source, whereas the other does not seem to be independent. If you could please advise me on whether this needs another possible deletion discussion this would be great? VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Although I don't know much about notability for soccer players (I came across the page by looking through Special:Newpages), after looking for sources I think that Hill fails GNG (and it looks like NFOOTY as well) and should be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Delaire, Delaware for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delaire, Delaware 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 Articles for deletion/Delaire, Delaware until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Mangoe (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

DE places
Had compiled this; though it may of interest: Djflem (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * These Are 30 of the Hottest Neighborhoods in Delaware
 * Thanks. These will be helpful whenever I work on Delaware place articles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Frederick
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Beanie - hope you are well. Just a quick note to say thank you for your comments on my talkpage yesterday.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * :) I'm happy to see you were unblocked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)