User talk:ZyphorianNexus

This is ZyphorianNexus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Please read WP:NOTDIRECTORY and Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Academics_(or_Academic_profile), which states Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section. It may be appropriate to highlight some of the areas of study, but it's not appropriate to exhaustively list all of them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I get where you're coming from about keeping Wikipedia tidy. I agree that we should focus on the important stuff and keep things concise. I was planning to tweak the article later to make sure it meets Wikipedia's rules. With the course info totally gone, the article feels a bit incomplete. Maybe we can find a middle ground on what to include. Thanks again for bringing this up! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Higher_education/Accomplishments includes some featured articles and good articles that you can use as examples of how to incorporate information about academic programs without violating WP:NOT. It probably makes the most sense to look at good articles about small to medium-sized universities such as Lafayette College, Lindenwood University, University of the Philippines Los Baños. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. I actually had a draft that I was going to work on and never did. Great job. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to ZyphorianNexus for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to ZyphorianNexus for copyediting 2 long articles during the GOCE May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to ZyphorianNexus for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 9,306 words – during the GOCE May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Dhtwiki (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For some years I have been trying to correct the title of the page 'Pentrich Rising' which is incorrect. The historical event is known locally, and nationally, as the Pentrich Revolution. I have previously sited evidience from several sources, including the Government, which clearly and plainly state my usage. Today I went to Pentrich and two two images, which I uploaded, both saying the same thing.

Wiki policy is to use the local common term for the event, and that is what all refer to. I have lived in the area on and off for decades and never heard anyone say 'rising'.

Please rename this page and stop someone changing the title. Martski22 (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see:

https://pentrichrevolution.org.uk/ Martski22 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! I can see you've been trying to get this changed for a while. I also noticed you and another editor brought this up on the talk page a couple of times, but since there wasn't much participation, no consensus was reached.

I've checked the source you provided, and I see that both "Pentrich Rising" and "Pentrich Revolution" are used, so it's not entirely clear cut.

I'd recommend starting a requested move process to get more input. You can make your case there, and also check out WP:UCRN further. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice ZN - I'll do as you suggest when I have some time for a thorough reply. Martski22 (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZyphorianNexus,

After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
• Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
• Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Take the time to write a proper summary whenever you're dealing with a lack of neutrality or verifiability; a short explanation like "[[WP:NPOV|not neutral]]" or "[[WP:INTREF|Please provide a citation]]" is helpful.
• Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
• If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.

To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZyphorianNexus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZyphorianNexus,

On the Bodhiruci (8th century CE) article, you have added the "copy edit" tag, for grammar, style etc (10:11, 7 January 2025). Your request is entirely justified. But unfortunately, I only speak English like a French person, so it's not perfect. I try to write as well as I can. I'm sorry about the imperfections you have pointed out in the article. If you could help me by correcting the errors, I could then improve the quality of my future contributions to the wiki-en. Thank you very much for your help. All the best. Ananda disciple (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't poorly written, but there are areas where the grammar and flow could use some work, which is why I added the copy edit tag. Honestly, I've seen much worse.

I'll clean it up a bit; though I might not get to it right away, I'll come back to it soon. If someone else happens to jump in first, that's perfectly fine, it'll be helpful. Thanks for reaching out! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right! Your comment is very useful to me. I will try to do better next time (this is only my 2nd published article). So wait and see. Thank you for your answer and help. Ananda disciple (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello ZyphorianNexus, Thank you for the excellent work you've done to help me!--Ananda disciple (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Glad I could help! Keep it up, and feel free to reach out if you ever need a hand—I'll help if I can. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following up on our conversation on my talk page, I did a check. I can see that you have a highly dynamic IP (not unusual in your part of the world) which increases the chances that you'll run into an IP that is blocked. But none of the IP addresses you've used recently is currently blocked (that could be because you've gone through more IPs than I can see on a quick check or because the blocks have expired). Therefore I'm not going to issue an IP block exemption for now, but if you have any more problems just let me know. It might be easiest to email me with the range that's blocked so I can find it without doing a CU. If I'm not around, ask any other checkuser (show them this message) and I give them permission to modify my block or grant IPBE as they see fit. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, and for your help. I really appreciate it! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia restriction on 'original research' seems to obstruct the improvement in information. Where published sources have been proved to be wrong or recorded prior research incorrectly the amendments that are blocked are making the former errors permanent and holding back accurate information.

Original 'essays' may add new subject information or improve former erroneous articles. certainly information should stand the test of substantiation with suitable source bibliography or references.

Plenty of researchers and writers are willing to give information on an open source basis but it is summarily deleted then their willingness to contribute will be undermined and it'll be another nail in the coffin of wikipedia ? Novafact (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The No Original Research (NOR) policy is actually one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, alongside Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability (V). These are the backbone of what keeps Wikipedia's content reliable and consistent. Even though you can't follow all the rules, all the time, these core policies are largely non-negotiable.

The main idea behind NOR is that Wikipedia is built on information that's already been published in reliable, independent sources. Per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, if there aren't any solid sources to back something up, it can't go into an article. And if you've found something new, Wikipedia isn't the place to share it first—that's what reputable journals or other platforms are for. Once it's published there, it can then be included here with proper citations. The policies are there to make sure anyone can fact-check and trust what they're reading.

If a topic is notable, it'll usually be covered by reliable sources. Updates or corrections to that topic are also likely to be reflected in those sources or new ones. If you believe a source is wrong, there needs to be another reliable source proving it's wrong—personal knowledge or unpublished research won't cut it. If published sources have already updated new information, then you're free to add the new info, but it must be well sourced and have citations, or else it's likely to be challenged or even removed.

If this however is about the Foxgrove Manor article that got deleted, during my review at NPP, I realised that a significant portion of the text appeared to closely mirror content from another website. Even though you own the source as you have mentioned here, text should generally be rewritten in your own words, rather than being directly copied or closely paraphrased, except when directly quoting or clearly attributing the source. Also, if the majority of the information in the article comes from your website, it would be considered self-published material. While self-published sources can sometimes verify certain claims, it's generally best to support or supplement them with third-party, independent, reliable sources.

If you'd like to create the article again, I'd recommend going through Articles for Creation. It's a great way to get feedback and ensure the article meets all of Wikipedia's standards before it's published. I hope this helps, and happy editing! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's talk it out on the Brewers talk page. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/AL_East_Division This link sides with me.2601:645:C683:24A0:79B2:A6:D0A7:6577 (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said my edit was not "constructive." How do I make it constructive? I know that I'm correct.2601:645:C683:24A0:79B2:A6:D0A7:6577 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already raised this on the article's talk page, which is the best place to discuss it with other editors and reach a consensus before making further changes, to avoid edit warring. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message and I asked chatGPT and they didn’t give me any sources for me to add Dodgerfan4343 (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If something can't be verified in reliable sources, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to ZyphorianNexus for accumulating at least 50 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZyphorianNexus,

First, thank you for your help in AFDLand. Secondly, admins are generally supposed to close an AFD 7 days after it has opened. There are times when AFDs are closed earlier but the general rule is to wait 7 days. Right now, you are often relisting discussions immediately after an AFD becomes eligible for closure (sometimes to the minute!). This doesn't leave a closer any time to consider closing an AFD before its closure is then delayed another week because of the relisting.

Please leave AFDs open for an hour or two before relisting them so that closers can have time to review them and, if consensus is clear, close the discussion. I'd say the only exception would be if there has been no participation yet in the discussion. I hope you can accommodate my suggestion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Liz. I totally understand the concern raised here. I appreciate the guidance and will keep this in mind moving forward. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZyphorianNexus, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at AfDs, I noticed the relist as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (4th nomination) with the comment Final relist. Per WP:RELIST, In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. (emphasis in the original) When relisting a third or more time there is an expectation to write why you did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZyphorianNexus,

I wanted to talk about the page Rod Dean before the issues you placed there are removed.

You placed an issue of "Not Significant Coverage". I cited multiple, reliable sources showing significant coverage of Dean, including recognizing him as an All-Canadian four-times, a First-team Conference All-star four times, setting multiple university records, being inducted into a sports hall of fame, etc. I've created many articles with similar citations / coverage and all of the experienced reviewers who reviewed these articles correctly understood this as significant coverage. If these accomplishments with multiple, reliable citations do not constitute significant coverage, no college athlete can meet the standard of "significant coverage". This identified error is erroneous and should be removed.

You also placed an issue of disputed neutrality. There is nothing impartial in the article. The closest thing I could see that could raise a concern about neutrality is the following line: "He has been described as 'one of the greatest Canadian collegiate basketball players of all-time'". However, this is not saying he is one of the best Canadian collegiate players (which could be subjective); it is providing a direct quotation from an Ohio Sports Hall of Fame that said this. Similarly, the Canada One Foundation placed him on their list of top 150 Players in Canadian basketball history. As such, it is objective to state that he has been described as one of the best basketball players in Canadian collegiate history (multiple reputable organizations stated this independently of each other).

The rest of the article can be summarized as follows: he was a four-time All-Canadian; he was a CIAU tournament all-star; he was a four-time First Team Conference All-star; he received certain team awards; he set university records; he has been inducted into a Sports Hall of Fame; and he was recognized by the Canada One Foundation as one of the top 150 basketball players in Canadian history. Nothing in the objective recitation of these facts suggests impartiality.

Again, like the Significant Coverage, I've written many articles on a variety of historic Canadian basketball players of similar quality, none of which have been claimed to have suggest impartiality by experienced reviewers. The fact that I have written so many articles regarding many individuals from different teams and time periods also shows there is no personal connection or concern of bias, but that an experienced Wikipedia creator simply created an additional article on an individual who achieved selective feats in Canadian basketball history and resultantly, is important to Canadian basketball history.

For the above reasons and as recognized by many experienced reviewers, the issues on this page are erroneous and should be removed. Canfan1964 (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Canfan1964, thanks for reaching out and for explaining your position in detail.

I appreciate the work you've done on Rod Dean and the effort to include multiple sources. The tags were added mainly because, on review, most of the cited references appear to offer only brief or routine mentions rather than in-depth, independent coverage focused primarily on Dean — which is what significant coverage refers to under the General Notability Guideline.

While sites such as team pages, governing bodies, and statistical databases can be useful for verifying basic facts, they are generally not considered independent sources or secondary sources, and are insufficient by themselves to demonstrate notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. Many of the references currently cited seem to fall under this category, or are "farm sites" or block-type sources.

From what I observed, most of the sources simply list Dean's name among other players or mention his statistics and awards without offering in-depth coverage. Only the first reference ([1]) provides a somewhat more substantial discussion. However, references such as [2] and [3] do not mention him at all, and several others contain only trivial mentions. These are fine for verifiability and fact-checking but are not sufficient to establish notability on their own.

For that reason, it's difficult to conclude that the article currently meets the requirements for significant coverage and the general notability guideline. Maybe a couple of extra sources could make it even better.

As for the neutrality, I took another look, and while the tone itself doesn't really come off as biased, the issue seems more about the sources. Most of them don't seem "strong enough" to back up the claims made.

Thanks for bringing this to my talk page. Hope this helps a little. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZyphorianNexus,

Thank you for your reply. However, it is unfortunately based on a misunderstanding of the notability / coverage requirement for sports and a misunderstanding of the sources themselves.

Notability correctly defined

As described in relevant part in the Amateur sports person article:

"A college athlete or coach is likely to have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage if they:

1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College football award navbox or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major NCAA Division I record.
2. Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame)..."

Here, the sources I cited establish such notability / significant coverage: Rod Dean was a four-time All-Canadian; a Canadian University Tournament All-star; four-time first-team Conference All-star; a hall of fame inductee (while not the overall Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame, it is a selective hall of fame establishing independent coverage / notability); etc. Per Amateur sports person, these sources which I included establishing Rod Dean's individual national awards / achievements and thus establish his notability.

Non-trivial sources correctly defined

You reference the fact that game statistics, team summaries, etc. do not establish coverage / notability as the concern for the issue you placed on the page. While it is correct that mere game summaries or routine coverage do not meet notability / coverage requirements, such a concern has been conflated / misapplied here.

Per the Basic criteria section, these types of sources include "listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." The Amateur sports person section summarizes this as sources which are "merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage".

Again, the sources I cited were not just a box score or a Sports Reference page of a college athlete that did not independently obtain notability / coverage. The sources I cited were ones covering Dean's individual accomplishments / national awards, which again per Amateur sports person, establish notability / coverage.

Correct standard

Per the Basic criteria section, notability / coverage in sports is established when the athlete is the subject of "multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." As described below, the present sources meet this standard.

Mischaracterization of present sources

In your reply, you take issue with two sources which do not mention Dean at all. Looking at the factual background of those two sources, those were included to explain how the conferences Dean played in changed while he was an athlete (to then explain why his first-team conference awards had different names) and to establish the reliability, independence and status as a secondary source for another source.

In correctly reviewing and presenting the sources, one sees that they are reliable secondary sources establishing Dean's indidividual accomplishments:

• [4]: Wyandot County Hall of Fame. This provides coverage of Dean and his accomplishments (not a game statistic, box score, or team roster). This is independent of Dean and is reliable.
• [5]: Canada One Foundation naming Dean as one of the top 150 players in Canada basketball history. This is coverage of Dean (not a game statistic, box score, or team roster), naming him one of the best players in Canadian basketball history (to be recognized as one of the best atheltes in a country's history establishes notability / significant coverage). The Canada One Foundation is reliable and independent of Dean.
• [6]: Frozen Hoops' article naming Dean as one of the top 100 players in Canadian basketball history. To be recognized as one of the best players in the history of a country constitutes notability / coverage. This is not a game statistic, box score or team roster. The Canada One Foundation's article recognized Frozen Hoops as reliable given its deep research. Frozen Hoops is independent Dean.
• [7]: CIAU's list of All-Canadians. This covers Dean in earning four national awards in being a 4x All-Canadian (i.e., notability / coverage). It is not game statistics, a team roster or box score. While this is the governing body, it is reliable and shows notability / coverage in receiving four All-Canadian honors. It is also used in conjunction with independent secondary sources.
• [8]: U Sports Hoops' List of First-team All-Canadians. This shows Dean was awarded the national award of an All-Canadian (i.e., notable / coverage). It is not a box score, game statistic or team roster. U Sports Hoops is independent of Dean. And it is the most reliable and in-depth independent source of U Sports / CIAU history.
• [9]: Same as above, put outlining Dean's three national awards as All-Canadian Second Team.
• [10]: U Sports Hoops Overview of Dean's Accomplishments. Again, this outlines Dean's national and conference awards (i.e., notability / coverage). This is not a game statistic, team roster or box score. Multiple sources covering these national awards also establishes notability, reliability and coverage.
• [11]; This was an OSU newspaper showing he played for OSU his freshman year. While not used for notability / coverage, it was necessary to cite a fact regarding this notable / coverage individual.
• [12]: Naismith to Nash Description of 1970-71 Season. This explained that Dean was named as an All-star in the CIAU National Tournament, a national award (further establishing covering / notability). It is not cited as a box score, game statistic or team roster. This is reliable in documenting essentially all of Canadian basketball history. It is independent of Dean.
• [13][14][15][16][17] : Naismith to Nash Outlining Dean's All-Canadian Awards. Again, this covers Dean in his multiple national awards (i.e., coverage / notability). It is not a box score, game statistic or team roster. It is also another independent, reliable, secondary source confirming the coverage / notability of Dean's accomplishments.
• [18]: List of All CIAU MVPs. While this doesn't list Dean, it shows how notable / covered he was: being a four-time All-Canadian is more selective than being the CIAU MVP (a highly notable / covered accomplishment in itself). It is not a box score, team roster or game statistics. While this is from the U Sports governing body, it shows how notable / covered Dean's accomplishments were and is used in conjunction with reliable, secondary sources (there is no dispute he received the multiple national / notable awards which he received).
• [19]: Same as above, but from U Sports Hoops. The same information from multiple reliable sources shows how well-researched and correct the information is.
• [20]: Same as above, but from Naismith to Nash.
• [21]: U Sports' List of CIAU National Tournament Results: Describes how WLU placed fourth in the CIAU National Tournament. It is not being used as a game statistic, box score or team roster (it has that, but it was being cited for the fourth-place finish). While just being a member of a team that does this does not establish coverage / notability in itself, being a leader of a team that does so (as seen in being named a CIAU All-Canadian and CIAU Tournament All-star) does help establish notability / Dean's coverage.
• [22]: U Sports Hoops Describing WLU's 1970-71 Season. Same as above, but from U Sports Hoops.
• [23]: U Sports' List of CIAU National Tournament All-stars. Covers Dean's national award as a CIAU National Tournament All-star. It is not a game statistics, box score or team roster. While it is from the U Sports governing body, it establishes the coverage / notability of a national award and is used in conjunction with reliable, secondary sources.
• [24]: Same as above, but from U Sports Hoops (a reliable, secondary source covering Dean's national award / notability).
• [25]: Same as above, but from Naismith to Nash (yet another reliable, secondary source covering this national award / notability).
• [26]: Used to describe how the conference Dean played in was renamed. This wasn't used for notability and was quoted in omission to all of the other sources covering Dean's national awards suggesting the sources don't focus on Dean's notability / coverage.
• [27]: U Sports Hoops Describing Dean's University Record Breaking. This is not a box score or team roster, but shows how Dean broke WLU university records for career points (i.e., coverage / notable).
• [28]: Same, but for points per game (breaking another university record shows coverage / notability).
• [29]: Same, but for playoff points (yet another record shows coverage / notability).
• [30]: Establishing Wyandot Hall of Fame's independence, reliability and status as secondary source.
• [31]: Establishing Canada One Foundation's (and thus Frozen Hoops') reliability, independence and status as secondary source.

Thus, by reviewing the sources and not only citing ones anomalous to the vast majority of the others, one sees that these sources are not box scores, team rosters or game statistics as used in routine coverage. The vast majority of them were cited to establish Dean's national and significant awards, which per Amateur sports person establishes notability / significant coverage. The cited concern does not apply here and the flagged issue was erroneously placed. The erroneous nature of this flag is further seen in multiple reviewers correctly adhering to Wikipedia's coverage / notability principles and not having any issue with any of the other articles I created who used similar sources regarding similarly notable individuals.

POV

In the reply, the stated reason for now including the POV flag is the sources. First, this is erroneous because as explained above, the flag for sources was erroneous. Secondly, the Rod Dean article adheres to all of the points listed in Neutrality Explanation section: (1) it avoids stating opinions as fact (it only states facts); (2) it avoids stating seriously contested assertions as facts (again, it only states facts); (3) it avoids stating facts as opinions (it only states facts); (4) it uses nonjudgmental language (it only objectively describes Dean's covered / notable accomplishments; and (5) the relative prominence of opposing views is not relevant because there are no opposing views to Dean's notable / covered accomplishments.

The POV flag is not to be used when there are issues with sources -- the sources flag is to be used when sources are an issue. The POV flag was another error and needs to be removed.

Conclusion

As explained above, per Wikipedia's policies, both the sources flag and the POV flag are erroneous. This is confirmed by multiple experienced reviewers approving other similar articles on similarly notable individuals.

Everyone makes mistakes, including Wikipedia reviewers. This is a case where this has clearly occurred. The proper course of action here is to recognize this understandable error and rectify it. Canfan1964 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly to further explain, the standard isn't that every source needs to be one widely covering the subject. The standard is that the subject needs to be notable / significantly covered and that there are reliable, secondary sources establishing this.

This has undoubtedly occurred here. It is undisputed that Rod Dean is notable / significantly covered (4x All-Canadian (first in history); CIAU tournament all-star; four-time first-team conference all-star; broke many school records; etc.). And the article cited many independent, reliable secondary sources establishing these accomplishments.

The flag is erroneous.

Please feel free to confer with other reviewers to confirm, but there are no issues with the Rod Dean page. Canfan1964 (talk) 12:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ZyphorianNexus,

Even though I originally complied with Wikipedia's notability / significant coverage requirements, I have added many articles that meet the definition you used. As such, there is no ambiguity regarding Dean's significant coverage / notability and no issues with neutrality of the article. With this, please remove the erroneous issues placed on the page and please let me know when you have done so. Canfan1964 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome ZyphorianNexus! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]