BHKendler161148

Welcome!

Hi BHKendler161148! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Ludicrous (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Willie Almond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lancashire Cup. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nat Walton, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GiantSnowman 21:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Giles Marsh moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Giles Marsh, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. It should have at least 3 of those. Please remember that routine sports coverage does not satisfy GNG, and that interviews, being primary sources, do not go to notability either. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969, Please consider my comments - Giles Marsh played for Accrington FC, a Football League club, relegated in 1893 and that then went bankrupt. There are no books on Accrington players as the club ceased to exist 130 years ago. The ONLY sources are ENFA and newspaper articles which I have quoted from. This player only played one League match and I am the only editor to create an article. Unless someone can suggest sources on this players career then Wikipedia will not be complete in terms of top flight footballers which is a same. Also, there is a consistency issue here. There are many one game players listed on Wikipedia from the Victorian era with the same limitation on sources and yet there are no concerns. It would be a shame if Giles Marsh is not listed but as I know of no other sources then it is Wikipedia' choice to be complete or incomplete. I have done all I can using my large collection of football reference books and online sources. BHKendler161148 (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC) BHKendler161148 (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Onel5969 so they will see this. S0091 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Paton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page County Ground.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Peter Haworth (Footballer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Haworth (Footballer) 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/Peter Haworth (Footballer) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Spicy (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Peter Haworth played for a top-flight football club that went bankrupt in 1893. There are no books on this club and the only sources for the players of this club are on-line (ENFA - English National Football Archive) or books on players who played for other clubs. The only sources, anywhere in the world for this player are ENFA and The British Newspaper Library. The Football League is the precursor for today's Football League. ENFA do not do biographies, only stats and other basic details. Wikipedia is the only place where these minor players can get a mention of their triumph or failure. Finally, many football books written in the early 21st Century, their authors research for ENFA and ENFA is the most comprehensive database on English Football anywhere in the world and is an example of high quality evidence. As is the British Newspaper Library. I have to pay to use both. If Peter Haworth cannot have his page then Wikipedia will be incomplete as a research source and all the poorer for that. BHKendler161148 (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

James McLuggage moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, James McLuggage, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. It should have at least 3 of those. Please remember that routine sports coverage does not satisfy GNG, and that interviews, being primary sources, do not go to notability either. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Football League, then Division 1 and now the Premier League were and remain the top flight of English Football. In the 19th Century the Football League was unique and those skilled enough to play were exceptional footballers for their time. Even if they played just one match. Wikipedia offers the only space where these players achievements or failures can be recorded for posterity. Unfortunately many records of these early players are limited and obscure but they all played their part in making the game of football what it is today. A player who played in the pre-League career and then for a League club that went bankrupt 130 years ago is not going to have any written material about them (apart from Joyce). There are only limited on-line sources. The fact is if McLuggage is left out then the story of League Football' early days is diminished and that Wikipedia will be incomplete as a source of information. Also, there is inconsistency here with other players left in with limited information. It would be a shame if James McLuggage is left out. I leave it up to you. BHKendler161148 (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Note To dismiss ENFA as a top quality source is a mistake in my view. They have working for them some famous names in football writing circles and there research is detailed and comprehensive. As they research they always update their pages. They are the most comprehensive footbsll database in England and are recognised by Football Authorities so they get donations of articles and TV footage about soccer. BHKendler161148 (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about your articles

Hi. I noticed your contributions and appreciate them! Unfortunately, in recent times Wikipedia has become overly (very overly) strict on what historical athletes can and cannot have articles. While previously players were considered automatically notable (worthy of a page) for playing in high-level leagues, like the players which you have written, we now require there to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - more simply, this means that there needs to be at least two sources that give in-depth coverage on the subject. If you include sources that have in-depth coverage (for example, a source with a couple paragraphs that gives biographical coverage or coverage on a player's past, etc.) then they should be alright. (Note: If the book sources in your articles do give in-depth coverage, with biographical details and such on each player, let me know). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in as well. I'm basically running into the same issues you are having - Articles that would have been acceptable here a year or two ago are now getting marked for deletion. And it was a major culture shock for me. From what I can tell, this came about due to a user named Lugnuts who posted thousands of short articles with limited information and sources. New rules were made to prevent this from happening anymore. Until the rule changes, basically any article without a few sources where the team or player is the main topic is probably going to be marked for deletion. This naturally makes doing articles on older and foreign subjects much more difficult and asking people to use common sense about it doesn't seem to help much. I don't know if you have a newspapers.com account, but it's free if you go in through wikipedia and could be a huge help with sourcing.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Joe Scowcroft for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joe Scowcroft 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/Joe Scowcroft 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 until the discussion has finished.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I understand in the five years I have been away from Wikipedia that the organisation has changed its policy. My comments are "high-quality evidence" is, like some much in "English" is as long as a pice of string. Many footballers

I write about played long ago when there were no books and only newspaper articles. I have many good books on football published from 2000 - 2015. Many of the Authors now work/volunteer for ENFA so I would suggest ENFA is "high quality" evidence. There is also the Joyce reference book and some other websites. All of these sources and the Metcalf book were used on the Scowcroft article. The Football League and the Premier League is the oldest League in the world and to play even one game for a Top-Flight club you have to be elite and high quality. Joe Scowcroft played 9 times in the historic first season and scored. I respectfully suggest that I have used ALL the evidence available and it is top quality, including my access to the British Newspaper Library which I pay for. If you delete these players I suggest you diminish Wikipedia as a research tool and you are making it too difficult in the demands for evidence. It is essential to have rules but the question needs to be asked what the rules are for and what does each rule try to achieve, or prevent. It will be tragic, long-term, for the quality of Wikipedia if articles about minor top-flight players are deleted. ENFA only provide stats, not biography. I only write about top-flight players and they deserve their place in soccer history. BHKendler161148 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

George Davis (footballer, born 1868) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, George Davis (footballer, born 1868), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. It should have at least 3 of those. Please remember that routine sports coverage does not satisfy GNG, and that interviews, being primary sources, do not go to notability either. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Hickton moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Arthur Hickton, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. It should have at least 3 of those. Please remember that routine sports coverage does not satisfy GNG, and that interviews, being primary sources, do not go to notability either. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly your policy in terms of Victorian footballers is too strict. On Hickton I quoted Matthews and Joyce. Matthews and Joyce both work for ENFA, a source that Wikipedia do not rate because they do not understand its importance in recording all English Football activity. I shall not contribute anymore until Wikipedia review its guidelines. With some areas of activity you cannot get three or four sources. Therefore Wikipedia as a source of information is compromised. I repeat I am not writing anymore for Wikipedia until the organisation reviews its criteria on a subject by subject basis. BHKendler161148 (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@BHKendler161148: Do you think you could email me (beaniefan100@gmail) what the books and sources you're citing say about these players? If they contain in-depth coverage of them I might be able to bring a few of your creations back. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Giles Marsh

Hello, BHKendler161148. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Giles Marsh".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:James McLuggage

Hello, BHKendler161148. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "James McLuggage".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 12:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:George Davis (footballer, born 1868)

Hello, BHKendler161148. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "George Davis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 04:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Arthur Hickton

Hello, BHKendler161148. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Arthur Hickton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)