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. The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion. Sandstein 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edvin Dahlqvist

[edit]
Edvin Dahlqvist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Played less than 1 minute of pro-league football back in 2019, and now plays on the third tier. His 16 minutes in the cup for IFK was against an amateur team. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to locate any that showed WP:SIGCOV of Dahlqvist? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, current keep votes are focusing on NFOOTY whilst the delete votes are focusing on the more important GNG. Extending to try to deliver consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Are WP:SNGs inherenlty less important than WP:GNG? At WP:SNG it's stated Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. So my question is, is meeting WP:SNG but not necessarily is WP:GNG a problem or is it that, as stated articles which pass an SNG [...] may still be deleted? (Note: I did !vote keep above, but per the re-lister's comment and some other !votes, I wanted to see what others' thoughts were on this question because it seems to be rather central to the discussion) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 21:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snood1205 the FAQ at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL gives guidance on this. The answer to Q2 is No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:08, 30 November 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.