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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Bech[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played in a fully professional league per Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Not thrilled about nominating this but bringing to AfD in order to determine whether he passes WP:GNG with his youth debut record. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I see, he took the pitch just yesterday for Viborg, so in my book that makes him a pro. Disclaimer: My Danish is non-existent and compounding the issue is the fact that I take personal exception to any sport calling itself football that doesn't use a prolate spheroid to determine possession. That said, I concur that this is a wobbler, but the tie goes to inclusions for me. Unrelated: Being ignorant about Danish names, I can only observe that some sources refer to him by the article name, and still others as Tobias Bech Kristensen, so a review by someone with a depth of familiarity with Danes/Danish football as to whether the article merits a move to the longer name would be wise, IMO. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 03:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueScholar: Viborg do not play in a fully professional league, which is our requirement for inclusion at WP:NFOOTY for soccer - naturally any AFL player should automatically be notable :) SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: You're right, of course, but looking at the spirit of the policy I don't think it's out of line to note that's only the case after relegation a couple years ago, and that they're currently within three points of a promotion slot back to one of those fully-professional leagues. The squad has played two of the last five seasons in the Superliga and with a better than even proposition of it being three of six in ~8 months, this could be deleting a page with no serious content issues save size, only for it to be recreated and pass another AfD in under a year's time. I apologize if my willingness to look beyond the stated policy is inappropriate in a colloquy of this nature or if my attitude betrays a lack of respect for the consensus that underpins the policy; I'm trying to expand my participation beyond article improvement and get some bona fides in the "WikiNuts'n'Bolts" competencies like AfD, but can't betray my inner nature as a genuine inclusionist. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RogueScholar: No worries. Just want to point out soccer has a large number of biographies (second most per capita behind gridiron) and it's very difficult to be kept if you don't technically pass the guideline, and we're also now going through and scrubbing articles which do pass the guideline, but where sources aren't immediately obviously found. Bach is very young and could pass the guideline relatively quickly, especially if he stays on the team if it were to be promoted again, but for now this is WP:TOOSOON, and the article is easily recreated if he does pass the guideline in the future. My only hesitation is that this is a better written stub than several recent articles I've accepted at AfC recently which are definitively notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: My reaction to hearing that soccer has so many biographies is genuinely "Awesome! I hope they have twice as many next year, provided they're factual!," though I have come to realize that mine is apparently a minority opinion here.
(I'll try to behave here and keep it topical, not political.)
I fully concur with you that what exists currently is a "notably" high-quality article when viewed among the cohort of Stub/Start-Class sports biographical articles. The information appears to be unflinchingly factual, and shows a commitment to quality on the part of the editors that I personally respect. And while I also greatly respect the time and energy it has undoubtedly taken you to have the level of experience to understand/reference all of the relevant content policies you've been kind enough to direct me to thus far, consensus does nothing to obviate their arbitrary nature, and in my heart it would be critically bad karma borne by all Wikipedians if the article were ultimately deleted. Considering it costs essentially nothing to let it remain (provided it's as factual as it appears after brief investigation) and the alternative is to lay waste to the incalculably valuable time (even if it's just measured in minutes) that others donated to breathe life into it, how can any of these policies ever accomplish anything good without some beneficent subjectivity on the part of those who apply them? I know that shouldn't technically come to bear on this discussion and so this will be my final comment regarding the matter, except to thank you for being so pleasant, informative and candid with me in this discourse. I honestly don't think I've ever had a WikiInteraction that involved three WP:YADAYADAALLCAPS links being included where I still hoped to have cause to interact with the other person(s) again someday, as I hope we do. You're a good egg in my book, no matter the outcome here. Best, — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ ^My recent
_mischief 06:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fair nomination, but I believe there is enough out there for GNG: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] R96Skinner (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - likely passes GNG based on sources found by R96Skinner. Giant Snowman 09:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as per sources by R96Skinner.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2019 (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.