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 redirect to List of Malmö FF players (1–24 appearances) per WP:ATD. There is a rough consensus that we don't have enough sources for a standalone article at this time, though many raised the possibility that these might exist offline and in Swedish. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) (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)

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. GiantSnowman 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. GiantSnowman 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. GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nor does participation in a "top" league. We both know, or at least should, that only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is of importance.Tvx1 14:47, 30 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]

GS's arguments are completely flawed, so you can't use them as a basis for your own keep rationale.Tvx1 14:47, 30 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]

No, it doesn't. That guideline does not exist anymore. Not a valid keep argument in any way.Tvx1 14:47, 30 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]

• So you're !voting keep based on an other person's utterly falacious arguments?Tvx1 14:47, 30 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have undone as bad NAC as a single admin action given the clear consensus of the DRV and to avoid a delay in discussion restarting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If we were to do this properly, someone should check a Swedish newspaper archive. And there is one online, but it's geolocked to Sweden. Perhaps someone in Sweden or a good VPN can look. I did a basic search with https://tidningar.kb.se/?q=malmo%20fotboll%20%22karl-erik%20nilsson%22&from=1935-01-01&to=1944-01-01 and it does yield 11 hits - and it's hard to tell if any are good. Part of the issue is that there's also am Erik Nilsson who played at Malmö during the same period, thus forcing quite a specific search. Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another paywalled archive has some mentions in him. At least 2 in articles from the snippet. Could someone with access look at? https://arkivet.dn.se/sok?q=%22Karl-Erik%20Nilsson%22%20%22fotboll%22&from=1864-12-23&sort=oldest&to=1944-12-31 Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NFOOTY was deprecated specifically because recent consensus determined mere participation was not a reliable predictor of GNG. Arguments appealing to a non-existent guideline must be ignored, including claims that "offline sources must exist" (since such claims are themselves based entirely on unsubstantiated predictions from NFOOTY). And WP:BEFORE does NOT require nominators to VPN into restricted news archives, that is a completely unreasonable expectation. JoelleJay (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can provide evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Ping me if you do and I will gladly change my mind. The closing administrator should discount any !vote that fails to provide rock solid evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Arguments that overtly or obliquely reference NFOOTY should be rejected out of hand, because that SNG is defunct. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we lack any sources providing significant coverage. Until someone can provide specifically what these sources are, we should not have an article based just on the claim that they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Johnpacklambert made this comment at 18:35 UTC. At 18:34 UTC he editing Stan Wood and at 18:33 UTC he was editing Robert J. Wood, and then two other pages at 18:32. It's implausible that he read the previous comments, and examined the sources himself - let alone did any searching for sources. I'd suggest that whoever close this AFD, disregard JPL's drive-by deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? There is one source, and it doesn't take long to determine that an article cannot meet WP:GNG with one source. Further, if you have issues with his contributions to AFD, the correct place to discuss this is his talk page or ANI rather than casting aspersions of drive-by deleting. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • One source? I linked a potential 11 sources in my comment above. Also, this is hardly an isolated action - his actions at AFD have been discussed in both of his current topic bans. Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You linked a search with eleven results. Given that you haven't examined those results, it's unreasonable to expect that other editors will examine them for you. And as I said, this is the incorrect location to discuss Johnpacklambert's behaviour - please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and if you believe the topic needs discussing please take it to the appropriate locations. BilledMammal (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't in my first post, cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I simply presented the facts about this particular nomination - with no reference to any past behaviour or censure; please read that page before referencing it again. And as I said - potential sources. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        You presented what you saw as facts about the editors behaviour, alleging that it was inappropriate and "drive-by deleting". In the future, please focus on the merits of their argument, and if you have concerns about their behaviour please take it to the appropriate location. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        I believe concerns about a particular editor's vote should be discussed where the vote is. If you think the discussion about that editor should yet again be taken to ANI, then you are free to do so. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        For the record, of those 11 sources, one seems to be about the wrestler of same name, the others seem to either list him in team lineups and/or are game recaps. Alvaldi (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Ah - that one must be Karl-Erik Nilsson (wrestler), also from Malmo; I hadn't searched after 1943, 5-years before I thought he appeared. Between the wrestler and our subject's teammate Erik Nilsson, this is a challenging search. I couldn't tell from the OCR'ed snippets how extensive the non-boxscores were - did you get the full text or image? Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It could be probable that the wrester and the footballer is the same person, but I haven't seen any evidence making it the same person. Govvy (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While there is a strong possiblity this is the same person as the Olympic wrestler, we have no sources that prove he is that person. If he is that person he would have been 15-20 when he was playing soccer. This again shows what other sources indicate, that playing soccer in the league in question was not notable at the time. The very fact we have not been able to find any sources that indicate this person is the same person as the wrestler, or on the other hand any sources that bother to say the wresler was not the same person of the same name who had played soccer in Sweden just before this, indicates that this soccer playing was not a notable action and so not enough to merit an article. If we do find sources at some point that indicate the wrestler had been a soccer player we can add them, otherwise this is a non-notable person. Olympic amateurism rules at the time may have made the soccer player actively conceal past even semi-pro wrestling, but Wikipedia needs verifiability not our own speculation, so we need reliable sources that prove this one way or to other to say anything on the matter. Without them we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article never actually met any criteria for football inclusion, because the play was not done in a fully professional league. The fact that it has taken over 13 days to get this deleted is part of what really frustrates some editors about the special treatment we give to clearly not at all notable footballers who no one has ever bothered writting substantially about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd considered whether they were the same person or not, but I'd assumed not - but obviously difficult to be sure. I don't think 13 days is a huge issue for a 10-year old article. Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a list of players for Malmö per above. This is a deeply flawed AfD on a difficult subject, but as it's currently a super-stub that nobody can currently develop, a redirect is best as the history would be retained if someone wants to develop this. I am concerned about WP:BIAS here as 23 games for Malmö during the war surely would have been worthy of note. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you, @SportingFlyer: you're only one other person who noticed that this is best served as a redirect. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails the GNG --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence here that there is sufficient significant coverage for this person to meet WP:GNG.Tvx1 14:47, 30 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.