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 votes centre entirely around NFOOTY which is a presumption of GNG. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS my assessment of the arguments is that those claiming the subject fails gng carry more weight as not a single source which might indicate the significant coverage NFOOTBALL assumes has been presented. Fenix down (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Gunnarsson[edit]

Erik Gunnarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as that's guideline is working now. Only played 6 minutes of pro-league football, back in 2017, and now plays on the third tier. I know this is a "career still ongoing" case, but as said the 6 minutes is pretty long ago. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - young player, notable per NFOOTBALL (he played in the Allsvenskan), with ongoing career. We traditionally give players like this more leeway with GNG and I see no reason to depart from that. GiantSnowman 07:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's so many years since he played those 6 minutes. Besides, how is this different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Boujar where you opined delete? Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable per NFOOTBALL, played in the Allsvenskan. Sources looks decent enough as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak keep The English article has very little on it, the Swedish article has more sources which seem mostly transfer related. That article is in a lot better shape and a good start which could be transcribed over. I've had a look at google hits, I don't see much promise really, but there maybe enough to push towards GNG, however this is a very weak keep for now. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He played 6 minutes in one game at a fully professional level. This does not pass any reasonable inclusion standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL #2 states ”Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable”. Gunnarsson has done just that. And is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that the subject is likely to pass WP:BASIC, not that he does. Alvaldi (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:NFOOTBALL#2 CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no reason to create gaps in the player coverage here. /Julle (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL means the subject is likely to pass GNG but there still has to be WP:SIGCOV on him to pass it. A Google search turned up nothing and his Swedish article only has links to trivial sources or database sites. Alvaldi (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As Alvaldi said, meeting NFOOTY is not sufficient for keeping an article if GNG is not met. This is most clearly stated in the governing NSPORT guideline FAQs:

  Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
  A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.
  Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
  A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
  Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
  A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.

The majority of the "keep" !votes have no basis in policy or guidelines (with the exception of Govvy's contribution). Google translation of the Swedish sources and those discovered through my own search reveal exclusively routine non-SIGCOV match reports and transfers, which emphatically do not demonstrate GNG. He doesn't even seem to be the most newsworthy Erik Gunnarsson... JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Obviously notable according to WP:NFOOTBALL. And as GiantSnowman put it, it's very reasonable to give some leeway with GNG in this case (and in similar cases). He is still young (22 years old) and is a prominent player in the Swedish third tier. It's not unlikely to assume that he will return to a more professional level in the future. Should the article be deleted now and then, it that case, be created again in a few years? That seems rather unnecessary to me. It would be completely different if he was 34 years old and had ended his career, but that's not the case here. (And of course, the article needs more content and sources. That's fairly easy to fix with inspiration from the Swedish article.) // Mattias321 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias321, NFOOTY does not confer notability -- it presumes it. NSPORT explicitly states a topic can only be considered notable if it meets GNG; see its FAQs:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

The coverage found in the Swedish article, by various !voters above, and by my own searches in Swedish newspapers are exclusively passing mentions and database entries, which do not contribute to GNG. Furthermore, the argument that he might be notable in the future is straight-up the definition of an argument to avoid (crystal). JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Ludvig Johansson, Mergim Laci, Andreas Öhman, Edvin Dahlqvist - Swedish players with one or a few games in Allsvenskan are all up for deletion. Very similiar to this player. --Fredde (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:WP:NFOOTBALL #2 states ”Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable”. Gunnarsson has done just that. And is notable. That is not an opinion, it is a fact and in line with the guidelines of notability for footballers. And is part of the sources provided. Notability is notability.BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Generally as in they are likely to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. It does not mean that a player is automatically notable for haven gotten paid for appearing for a few minutes in a single game and has nothing to his/her name other than a few database site entry. If the significant coverage isn't there, then the person is not notable. Alvaldi (talk)

@BabbaQ: NFOOTY is not a guideline. It is a set of rules of thumb within NSPORT, which is a guideline that a) explicitly excludes databases and routine match reports from consideration of notability and b) is specifically a predictor of GNG and thus requires GNG sourcing be demonstrated when notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there's some brief coverage like this but not enough for GNG in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while NFOOTBALL is met, GNG is not. I am concerned by certain comments above, particularly with the phrasing from BabbaQ, that suggests they haven't read NFOOTBALL/NSPORTS fully. Some have, such as Mattias321, but in response to "it that case, be created again in a few years? That seems rather unnecessary to me." I'd give a clear "yes". I'm not immune to an argument that something is likely to become notable in a couple of weeks - if he'd been listed as a player for a professional game in a week I'd accept the reasoning. But years is a long time, and we might have to wait 8 years and only then find he'd never done more than the six minutes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nosebagbear, please see this (closed) DRV discussion that essentially says an AfD argument is not invalidated by its arguer's or closing admin's misinterpretation of NSPORT... JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete the sources in the Swedish article are very short and he's been mentioned during his time with Utsikens in the media several times. I don't think he's that far away from qualifying for an article on sourcing grounds, but I can't find the magic source to put him over the line, and I can't support draftifying because that might not be in the next six months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 1 May 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.