Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Vindheim

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Vindheim[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.. not guaranteed that this player will make his first-team debut soon. JMHamo (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - removal of the PROD was borderline POINTy; article clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In what way was the Prod removal borderline pointy? Nfitz (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the suggestion that he will play soon inferred by the removal of the PROD is without any merit, there are no reliable sources to suggest, let alone confirm this. As such the player does not pass WP:NFOOTY let alone GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY at this time. ///EuroCarGT 01:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG. Isn't there a requirement for participants in a deletion-discussion to actually search for sources before claiming a topic fails GNG? This article from the regional newspaper, Bergens Tidende, and this article from the national broadcaster NRK both addresses the topic directly and in detail. Vindheim has also received a lot of coverage in local papers when he signed his first professional contract, when he was training with French club St. Etienne, when he was wanted by the French club and when he rejected the French club offer - but those shouldn't be counted towards notability. WP:NFOOTY is just a rule of thumb, and we all know that playing one match in a fully pro league has no real impact on passing the general notability guideline, which is the most important notability guideline - but I must say that nominating an article for deletion when he is expected to pass NFOOTY in a couple of weeks is also bordeline WP:POINTy. Mentoz (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article object appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. User:Mentoz86's suggestion of GNG are general transfere speculations. Wikipedia is no crystal ball: It is no guarantee the player will ever play a match even if he transferes. Grrahnbahr (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grrahnbahr I believe you've misunderstood, his transfer to St. Etienne isn't going to happen, but he has signed a professional contract with Brann. As you might be aware of, local young players in the big clubs in Norway (Brann, Rosenborg, Vålerenga and Viking) tend to get a lot of coverage in the regional and local papers, and I'm not suggesting that Vindheim passes GNG because of the transfer speculations, but rather because of the coverage he has gotten in the pre-season; the articles in BT and NRK are pretty in-depth. I've struck the transfer speculation for clarity. Mentoz (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Bergens Tidene clearly states that it is not sure he will start any matches this year, because of not being regarded as the best player for the team at that position. The articles are beyong doubt about the player, but does not suggest any extraordinary events or preformances for coverage, just a young talent who may will get his start in a professional league this season. If he get some strange damage, making him unable to continue his career tomorrow, I would not at all support keeping an own wikipedia article about the person, based on the relevance criterias. That is where we are today with this player. The crystal ball argument still applies, even if he does not transfere. Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2014 (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.