User talk:Nickathans

Nomination of Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club 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/Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club 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 template from the top of the article. Hack (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Old Trinity Grammarians Soccer Club requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion problems....

Hi there, I saw the retweet by someone about your club's history article, and then saw it on the nominated for deletion list, so I tracked down your twitter accounts to see what's going on. I see you've got two problems happening, firstly the article and secondly the logo. I'm an Australian editor, mainly focused on Aussie rules, but have been here long enough to know how most things work. There are two main guidelines on what is or isn't a "valid" topic for a wikipedia article - the main one is the WP:GNG - the General Notability Guideline. It has three main components - Significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Significant means not just brief mentions, independent means not self published and reliable sources is explained in the link, but basically means published by an organisation with a decent reputation for being factual (and yes, News Corp papers do count!).

The other guidelines are called subject-specific guidelines, and in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has guidelines on what they consider notable. Covering soccer (told you I was an Aussie rules fan, I can't call it football!) worldwide, they use a "played in a fully professional league" criteria for players, and a "played in a national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists)" (see WP:FOOTYN for the full details) criteria for clubs. So as your club doesn't meet that criteria, you need to show that it has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A paragraph announcing the opening of a season in the local paper isn't significant. The club website isn't independent. You really need to be able to show that, or else you are best off just using the club website to host the history.

As for the logo issue, by uploading it to commons, depending on the licence you choose, you are effectively releasing it for reuse by anyone in the world. If the article is saved, then I would suggest you upload it to en.wikipedia.org, not commons, and license it with a {{Non-free logo}} licence template, and add the required Non-free use rationale guideline. I hate copyright law on here, but it what you have to do if it isn't a free use item. Feel free to reply here, or FreoPope on X, or on my talk page, or even by email (the link is on my talk page in the toolbox section on the side under "email this user"). Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Pope. I'll work on it today and tomorrow and see what I can find, ill run it by you and we can go from there. Cheers. Nick user:Nickathans

Proposed deletion of Old Trinity Grammarians SC

The article Old Trinity Grammarians SC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia should not be used as a web host for a non notable amateur club with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. The-Pope (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Old Trinity Grammarians SC for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Old Trinity Grammarians SC 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/Old Trinity Grammarians SC 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. The-Pope (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Old Trinity Grammarians SC Logo.jpg

The file File:Old Trinity Grammarians SC Logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)