Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Another discussion that will not reach consensus until a wider consensus related to NFOOTYNEW is reached. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability: just a database entry Ficaia (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ficaia (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional footballer in Sweden's top league; numerous appearances; nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE in trying to locate coverage, which will be hampered by the era. Giant Snowman 09:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman According to the sources listed in User:Bring back Daz Sampson/Professionalism in Swedish football, the Swedish league was not professional during that period. Professionalism in football was only allowed in 1967 but even in 1998 less than half of the players where fully professional. Alvaldi (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as we both know, professionalism does not matter given NFOOTBALL has been abolished. Giant Snowman 17:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GS. As with several other cases, the OP has failed to perform BEFORE and has ignored or failed to understand significant facts in the article. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 14:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link any of these supposed sources? Or are we supposed to take your word for it? Ficaia (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No significant coverage in the article and none has been presented here. I was also unable to find anything on the subject during an online search, including in Swedish sources. According to the article, he played 5 seasons for Malmö, appearing in 23 matches. During the same five seasons, Malmö played 130 league matches so there is no evidence that he was a significant player of that team. Alvaldi (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alvaldi: The player is from the 1930s to 1940s, before the internet, not all players will be recorded to the internet since then. Your argument for deletion appears to based on what the internet has, it's more highly likely that one would need to search archived newspapers, what can be a problem due to the time period, hence WW2. I strongly suggest you consider the possibility of off-line sources otherwise your argument for deletion is only one sided. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy I did consider offline sources, due to the concerns that you mention, but unfortunately came to the conclusion that there no evidence that this was a notable player. Notable players in my experience usually have some traces of coverage in modern times, even if it is just "player x starred at team y", but in Nilsson's case I couldn't find any traces of coverage. The only thing I know is that he played in roughly 17% of his teams game during a 5 year period which does not indicate a notable player. If someone finds any kind of evidence of his notabily, I am more than happy to reconsider my !vote.

On a sidenote, I did theorise that this Nilsson is the same person as Karl-Erik Nilsson (wrestler) who are both from Malmö and possibly in a similar age range (Nilson the Wrestler would have been aged 15-20 during the years in question) but couldn't find any sources that linked them together. Alvaldi (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 12:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several people with this name, there is certainly a lot lacking with the article. Only one source provided, however that does raise more questions than answers about the player. However what annoys me about the delete arguments, is the simple fact of unawareness of football article structure. This is forgetting the fact this can be a redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances), until a more comprehensive article is built. I really don't also get what people have against sports stub articles. The point of a stub here is pretty clear, tells us a few things. This is a valid article in many respects and I certainly have nothing against it. Govvy (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) is in my opinion also perfectly acceptable. Alvaldi (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy Several other Malmö FF players from the same era that where created by the same editor with the same single offline source, where redirected to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) for failing WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and WP:NFOOTY as they "did not play in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues." [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Alvaldi (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nomination completely ignores the long standing consensus about footballers from this era. I can't even find any 1930s Swedish newspaper or magazine archives. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community consensus is clear on all athletes must pass GNG. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Alvaldi (talk) 23:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the recent RFC, it didn't address examples like this. The focus was very much on modern athletes, with some talk of early English players. I tried to raise the question of how we deal with bias against players where we don't have good online resources in the appropriate language - but there discussion became so convoluted, that there wasn't addressed. That leaves us to look to past AFD discussions for consensus. Nfitz (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

!Votes need to be based on what current guidelines actually say, not what you wish they said or your interpretation of past AfDs. NSPORTS is the relevant guideline and covers athletes from all eras, not just modern ones. –dlthewave ☎ 05:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets NFOOTY. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, since there's no presumed notability for footballers, I'm assuming you've found significant coverage as required by WP:NSPORTS. Could you please share a few of your best sources here? –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous that people are being harassed for not being able to find online sources for a pre-Internet player from a non-English speaking country. The fact that a book exists offline and is being used indicates it's likely that other such books exist. Deleting simply because none of us have access to offline Swedish language book sources is ridiculous and a clear WP:BIAS, based on the player's nationality and era. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 Asking people politely to show evidence of their claims is not something that could be considered as harassment. Regarding the book in question, there is no evidence that it covered the subject in detail. As I listed in an answer to Goovy above, there where several other similar articles created of Malmö players by the same editor with the same set of information (name, position, total games, total goals) using the same book as source which indicates that the information in it about these players where just database listings. Furthermore, almost all those articles where later redirected to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) for failing GNG and for not having played in games involving two professional teams. So I kindly ask, what evidence do we have that the subject, who during his career didn't appear in 83% of his teams games in a seemingly non-professional league, is notable? Alvaldi (talk) 09:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, Stifle cited a guideline that no longer exists so of course they were asked to clarify. –dlthewave ☎ 12:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participation on the delete side to claim a genuine consensus, but the keep votes seem very misguided, ignoring recent developments, and claiming local consensus rather than GNG is most important. Extending for another week to try to establish evidence based consensus, rather than personal opinion based, but would close as delete based on strength of arguments if this does not occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per GS's comments Zanoni (talk) 08:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as no WP:SIGCOV can be found, meaning that it fails both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG when it needs to pass both. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS arguments on the basis of innate notability are invalid, as a broad consensus was found to exist against that position when WP:NFOOTY was removed from WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.