Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frode Fredriksen

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. I'm going to be bold here and say that the consensus when the weight of arguments is assessed is to delete. AfD isn't a vote and the keep votes are essentially a plea that there must be sources, yet none indicating gng have been presented. Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frode Fredriksen

[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)

This article passes WP:NFOOTY in its current dysfunctional form because he played two games (one as late sub) in the 2001 Tippeligaen, which we have arbitrarily defined as a 'fully professional league' (in reality it was nothing of the sort). The rest of the guy's appearances were in the lower divisions, even further away from full-time professional football. Accordingly there is a dearth of sustained, non-routine coverage in reliable sources which would pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really should go to requiring people to have multiple games played in a fully professional league before we even consider that they might be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Berg (footballer, born 1943) Mentoz (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, there are enough decent hits in google for the guy, I can't understand the language hits know, the article has currently seven citations, although could be better written. He has won the 1. divisjon (OBOS-LIGAEN) 2001,[1] and there must be more offline sources. I am getting fed-up with these nominations that clearly lack WP:BEFORE!. Govvy (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being part of squad which won a second tier, semi-professional league 20 years ago doesn't make you inherently notable. In fact if that's the best source you found, it's obvious the guy fails WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Govvy. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who played two matches in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails GNG (making the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL invalid). I can only find online archived Norwegian-language coverage that is trivial such as match reports. Jogurney (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched the Norwegian newspaper archives but could not find any examples of WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 21 February 2021 (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.