User talk:Das osmnezz/Archive 1


 * Why can't you log in at User:Osmnezz? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot login to User: Osmnezz because I forgot the password.Das osmnezz (User talk:Das osmnezz) 06:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You edited using Osmnezz on October 2. Are you really asking us to believe that you forgot you password within three weeks? And did not write it down? --Anthony Bradbury"talk"  16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I forgot to write my password down and did not press the "keep me logged in" button while logged in as Osmnezz.Moreover, when I created the Sock puppet account of Das osmnezz I completely forgot about the Osmnezz password, having created a different password for Das osmnezz, and I wrote the Das osmnezz password down but not the User:Osmnezz password.Das osmnezz (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , I'm fine with giving them another shot if they are restricted to the single account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, that sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues
This has been brought up here before, but if you intend to continue uploading images to Wikipedia you need understand and follow the image use policy. Failure to adhere to these guidelines, particularly copyright provisions, will result not only in the images being deleted, but it will get you blocked sooner or later. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Abo Baker Adam, you may be blocked from editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amanbek Manybekov. ''This is the last warning you'll get. If you continue to revert corrections to your English, you'll be blocked from editing, again.'' Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Aapo Halme. If you continue to add unsourced opinions to articles, especially biographies of living people, you will be blocked from editting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bobir Davlatov. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have stopped ever since Bobir Davlatov and the only opinions I wrote were what the coach said in the reference for Kota Ranger FC. Das osmnezz (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for promotional and POV editing, as you did at Valeriy Vdovin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: You have been repeatedly blocked for problematic editing in the past. I strongly advise you to pay scrupulous attention to our policies and guidelines for editing. Failing which, I fear you are in the express lane heading for the exit marked "indefinite block." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely For Real Last and Final Warning
After this you are exactly one POV edit from an indefinite block. I honestly don't know if this is a case of deliberate POV/promotional editing or if its a case of WP:CIR. Either way though we have reached the end of the rope. I have very serious doubts about your ability to edit the encyclopedia in a manner consistent with our guidelines and policies. And since based on your block log and history of warnings, you seem unable or unwilling to correct your manner of editing you will be indeffed the next time you make an obviously POV edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You Have Been Indefinitely Blocked
I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. I have taken this action very reluctantly since I do not believe you have been engaging in malicious editing. Unfortunately your editing history as supported by your contrib log, the numerous discussions on this talk page and your block log, collectively show that you lack the necessary competency to edit the encyclopedia at this time. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: My personal opinion is that you would benefit from a break from here. Maybe 6-12 months and then come back and ask for a Standard Offer. That said, I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the reviewing admin (as the one who blocked you I normally would not unilaterally decline an unblock request). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I concur that there is no evidence of malice in their recent activity. This is strictly a CIR issue. That said, I defer to the judgement of the reviewing admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support an indefinite block. WP:NFOOTY has been made clear to them many times e.g., , , and they seem to be not listening. Ditto for POV edits and copyvio images. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Joseph 2302 I already have an indefinite block and as Ad Orientem said, there is no evidence of malice in my recent activity. Thanks for pointing that out though and I will try not to ignore the warnings which is true whether you believe me or not. (which i assume you don't due to my history but its true) Das osmnezz (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Whether or not to unblock you is not my call to make either, but since you pinged above I'll offer you my two cents worth as well. You've said this same sort of thing about how there would be no further problems going forward as a reason for lifting your first block six months ago. You've repeated it several times since then, and yet here we are. I don't doubt that you meant it every time. You've never given me reason to think you were acting in bad faith, but that's not the problem here. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. I've spent the last six month cleaning up after you, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Your past behaviour gives me no reason to think anything will actually change if you're unblocked, and under those circumstances I can't in good conscience recommend it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sir Sputnik, I frankly agree with some of your opinion, how you shouldn't be cleaning up after me and that I wasn't acting in bad faith and doing it deliberately. My primary problem was assuming in those cases . However, all those problems I was blocked for were different and I can't think of any other way i can be blocked again now but thats not the point; the point is that I made some good and non-disruptive edits to other pages /articles, created helpful talk pages (see unblock request above) which was a positive change abut got blocked for the minor violations of  forgetting to title an image inbox template and accidentally creating a non-notable footballer page. Consequently, (in my view) do have the competence to edit Wikipedia . (by the way Ricardo Sendra should not be deleted since he made one appearance for Geylang International FC see  (see above unblock request)) Das osmnezz (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I really don't see the point of blocking this user. The article they created, is clearly a keep in the AFD discussion (and even before his recent professional appearance, the media was talking about the certainty that he would be playing). The POV edit is subtle enough, that I can't see it at first glance. And a missing title on an image? This looks more like a vendetta than a fair process. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nfitz I surmise they are blocking me due to my history but in all I agree with you that those shouldn't be grounds for blocking me at all. What's more, I literally have a surprisingly big list of articles I want to create (see above request) which will expand WikiProject Football more. And yes, they all meet the criteria for notability. Das osmnezz (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * he didn't meet WP:NFOOTY when the article was created, just like about 50 other articles this user has written. It's not a vendetta, as at least four uninvolved admins have blocked him for either creating bad articles, copyvio imaging, or POV editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's arguable. As I pointed out, there were significant media articles saying that he would be appearing - which isn't a surprise when you bring in a foreign player to that particular league. As I said, it seems trumped up. As blocks are only preventative, and not punitive, I really don't see what is still being accomplished here User talk:Joseph2302. Nfitz (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 50 is an exaggeration; I estimate it must be about 7-8 if not less/more.Das osmnezz (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 47 deleted article space articles according to . Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * To be fair, 27 were deleted for my account previously being a sock puppet. Also a portion (8) were deleted because there already was a category on the subject leaving 14 and the majority of them were early in my account. (FC Birobidzhan was an accidental redirect before i made the article it redirected to, FK Birobidzhan). Quite a few of them still exist (since I created them again after I didn't use multiple accounts) and meet the notability standard.  Another thing is that I have never been blocked for 'bad articles'. Das osmnezz (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion?
Was this you editing under an IP address? It seems odd that an IP that's never edited before suddenly turns up at this AfD. If it is you, then this is block evasion, which won't help you get unblocked. Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Joseph2302 yes it was me, guilty as charged. This reason doesn't justify it at all but it was because Ricardo Sendra made his debut yesterday (april 8) and I was just attempting to prevent my page from being deleted. You might have or wouldn't have done the same in those circumstances. Indeed, it wouldn't enhance the probability of me getting unblocked, but it was a lats resort to stop my page getting deleted.Das osmnezz (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to preserve the page, take a copy of it and store it offline. Then, if it gets deleted, you can recreate it when you get yourself unblocked, adding the extra evidence needed to satisfy the appropriate guidelines. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Boing! said Zebedee thanks for the information - I will do it if it does get deleted when Im unblocked.Das osmnezz (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I have downgraded your block to three months, so you will be able to return. I have done this after taking into consideration that your most recent block was triggered in part by an issue which turned out to be a false alarm. However there remain other issues including your recent block evasion and CIR is still a huge concern. DO NOT evade this block. DO NOT continue to post unblock requests. I will strongly oppose any further relaxation of this block. You need some time away from here. Aside from the competency concerns, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed with Wikipedia. I second Yamla's suggestion that you try editing some of the other wiki-projects that are linked on the main page. This block applies only to the English Language Wikipedia. Take this as a learning experience, work on your skills elsewhere and we will see you back here in July. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

3 months? That seems rather overboard. We've already established that the one charge was completely trumped up. I couldn't see an issue with the POV claim when I looked earlier - but I can't find the diff for it now. Can you point it to me? And perhaps you can point me to the imagery copyright issue (which I assume has since been deleted). Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz heres the image copyright issue difference between revisions. By the way, am I permitted to make desired pages on Microsoft Word while blocked and copy and paste it when my block expires?Das osmnezz (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? That looks more like a typo than anything else, with the malformed brackets. There isn't something else? What was the POV edit? Nfitz (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ad Orientem. Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you want outside of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can also work on new pages within your own userspace - I assume you can still create new pages in your userspace. Nfitz (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, a blocked editor can only edit their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear God, is this still being discussed? I will take a look tomorrow when I have a chance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Block Review OK I have taken another look at the totality of the circumstances. If this were nothing more than what he was initially blocked for, I'd probably have already unblocked him. But that is not the case. This is not a first offense, or a second, or a third... The unhappy fact is that they have been blocked so many times, someone with no knowledge of the background might be forgiven for wondering why they were not indeffed a long time ago. Point in fact, they have been. More than once. And they were let off the hook each time. And yes, there are extenuating circumstances here that I and other admins agree justify, once again, dropping the indeff. But there are aggravating factors as well. His block evasion coupled with the shockingly long list of previous blocks (all pointing to CIR issues) cannot be overlooked. I also need to point out that his long train of unblock requests have been reviewed by three other admins, each of whom declined the requests. My subsequent decision to reduce the block from an indeff to three months was discussed by myself and two other admins both of whom concurred with that course of action. At this point, I don't believe that we can overlook the aggravating factors here. And I am satisfied based on their track record that they need some time away to consider how they are going to contribute to the project and where they have gone wrong in the past. If the past in any indicator of the future, letting them off the hook yet again is not going to help either them or the encyclopedia. And to be clear, I do not consider this punitive. I am acting to protect the project from an editor whose competency has been questioned over and over again by other editors and for which they have been repeatedly blocked. I am also doing this for the benefit of an editor who clearly wants to help, but who has a habit of leaving mistakes that other editors are constantly having to clean up. And lastly block evasion, by an editor who has been so frequently blocked in the past is just unacceptable. Whatever words may be offered to the contrary. it suggests an editor who has been let off the hook a few too many times. Therefor the 3 month block is affirmed. If you wish to pursue this matter any further I suggest opening a thread at WP:ANI. But given how many admins have been involved with this editor in the past, I think that this would be a waste of everyone's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping
 * I wasn't asking you to review the block User:Ad Orientem at this time. I was just trying to understand the evidence for the latest block better. The 3 pieces were, if I recall was creating the article that went to AFD, a POV edit, and the lack of image description. Can you point me to this POV edit - what I saw earlier (but couldn't find again) didn't seem to be much - but I'm not sure if I was looking at the right thing, and didn't spend the time to understand the context. And the image description appears to have been a malformed Non-free fair use Template looking at  - but I've only got it on hearsay, that is the evidence. The alleged block evasion wasn't part of the reason for the block, as it occurred later. Not that it isn't serious - I'm just looking at what the background was for the latest block, so that I can understand it properly. No point in going to ANI if I've been mislead ... Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think we are talking past each other. If you are concerned that the grounds initially cited for his most recent block are weak, I reached that conclusion a few days ago (mea culpa mea culpa). That is why I reduced the block to 3 months. The principal reason he is still blocked is because he engaged in fairly naked block evasion. Even then, the block would likely have been no more than a month if it were not for his very long history of blocks which makes this evasion, at a time when he had unblock requests still active on this page, particularly unacceptable. The CIR issues are also there as I explained above. If you would like me to unblock him, and refer this to ANI I am willing to do so though I would insist on his agreement. My concern is that at ANI his entire record is likely to become the subject of scrutiny and depending on who shows up for the discussion he could end up getting indeffed or worse. You may also want to take a look at this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I hadn't realised you'd come to that conclusion, as I'm late to the game. But wait, that means he's blocked for 3 months for evading a block he shouldn't have been given? Isn't that kind of like the police charging the guy for having a joint in his pocket, when they stopped him because of racial profiling? Looking at his block evasion, it was simply an IP edit to the AFD that lead to much of this, telling the people there something that was very germaine to the discussion, and hadn't come out (despite his previous attempts to flag it on his talk page, which some people chose to ignore, despite being key to the discussion, changing it from a probably delete, but maybe there's a case to keep, to a snow keep. He readily admitted it was him, didn't try and hide it - and didn't do any harm. It's not like he tried to sockpuppet it, and I can understand the frustration of those on the talk page choosing to ignore what you were trying to tell them - which ended up changing the whole direction of the AFD discussion. Just seems unnecessary - though I confess I haven't rooted through the past history. Here is a question. What does User:Das osmnezz want? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not further reducing the block given their record. By their own reckoning they have been blocked more than ten times. If anyone wants to pursue this further, ANI is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Nfitz here is my block log which shows when I was blocked and when I was unblocked. Most of them were for different reasons. User:Nfitz, I advise you to not push it any further as it will p[robably waste everyone (including myself} time.Das osmnezz (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Das osmnezz, please understand that your block is not punitive. It's a response to a long track record showing alack of competency and/or lack of appropriate respect for the way we do things here. Everyone that I am aware of who has interacted with you wants you to become a productive member of the Wikipedia community. But again your record shows you aren't there and in my judgement (and yes this is a judgement call) you need some time away. And so do we. I don't want to be rude, but you have been a one man time sink for a lot of editors and admins on here. My advice is to take the three months and do a little work on some other wiki-projects and then come back after your block has expired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well before User:Ad Orientem became involved, I count 2 blocks in 2016 and 2 blocks in 2017. Followed by 2 blocks by AO. The most recent block in my opinion is harsh - and I'm quite willing to die on this mountain. But User:Das osmnezz's wishes are paramount. So I'll leave alone. I'd encourage them to not try to evade this, particularly with a sock puppet. That seldom ends well; to pull it off, one has to have an awareness and control, that if existed, would have meant the user would have never landed in this situation in the first place! (no insult - I doubt I could pull it off either). Thanks AO for talking about the situation. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Flyyn
I am planning on doing an article on non-league striker Ashley Flynn who plays in the tenth tier of the English football league system. He is mostly known for scoring 74 goals in one season, and the BBC and the independent.co,uk and the mirror.co.uk have all produced articles on him -, , and. Does that satisfy GNG by any chance? Das osmnezz (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest writing a WP:DRAFT on him and then sending it to WP:AFC for review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I.P. Addresses that should be blocked
I took a look at this IP address' contributions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.241.5.170 and saw that all he did was add fake foreign players to the squads of various African clubs. (I searched them up on google and found nothing related to a football player) Das osmnezz (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You should report that to either WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Make sure that they have been properly warned first though. You may find WP:Twinkle a useful editing tool. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of articles I am going to create
Here is a small list of articles I am going to create soon: Khairallah Abdelkbir, Leonida Nedelcu, Emile Damey, Razif Onn, Paolo Pascual, PS Batam, Ralph Lundy III, Clay Silvas, Moustapha Diaw, Mohamadou Sumareh, Waleed Obaid, Joao Chissano, Ramadhan Singano, Michel Sablon, Shad Forsythe, Adlane Messelem, Merron Gordon and Dinh Hoang La.Das osmnezz (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I strongly suggest you create those articles as drafts and then submit them to WP:AFC for review. If there are any problems they could then be identified and corrected before the articles land in the mainspace, thus avoiding giving any further reason for complaint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem Thanks. I am currently working on a draft of Clay Silvas.Das osmnezz (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Henry Kisekka) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Henry Kisekka, Das osmnezz!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I moved the page to Henry Kisekka, hopefully that was correct. Let me know on my talk page if it wasn't and I can move it back."

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clay Silvas


The article Clay Silvas has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Richard Orlowski) has been reviewed!
{{subst:Reviewednote-NPF|1=Richard Orlowski|2=Kudpung|3=Please clean up the naked URLs. See {{WP:CITE]] for more information.}}

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Colin Harewood


A tag has been placed on Colin Harewood requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FK Bežanija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikola Milošević ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/FK_Be%C5%BEanija check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/FK_Be%C5%BEanija?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreign players lists
Hello, I am pinging creators and active editors of the lists found at Category:Lists of expatriate association football players because of the discussion where your opinion would be welcomed. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uroš Poljanec


The article Uroš Poljanec has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zak Downes


The article Zak Downes has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zak Downes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zak Downes 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/Zak Downes 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Uroš Poljanec for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uroš Poljanec 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/Uroš Poljanec 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Esoh Omogba


A tag has been placed on Esoh Omogba, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion,. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Esoh Omogba for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esoh Omogba 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/Esoh Omogba 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)