Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geir Hasund

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) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geir Hasund

[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)

Disputed PROD with the wording: "nonsense". But demonstrably the article subject doesn't meet either WP:NFOOTBALL (having played well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional') or WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Nielsen, Atle (2008). Sportsklubben Brann: 100 år med tro, håp og kjærlighet (in Norwegian). Bergen: Schibsted. pp. 247–251. ISBN 978-82-516-2658-3.	Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute	Looks to have been written by a veteran radio journalist/writer of national repute	? I would accept this for WP:V but don't think it helps much to establish WP:N. I would be very surprised if four of the 251 pages are given over to "significant coverage" specifically of Geir Hasund.	? Unknown
Articles for deletion/Geir Hasund at the Norwegian Football Federation (in Norwegian)	Published by the national association		A simple list of stats which the national association compiles for every player in the Country	✘ No
Eikrem, Allan (25 September 2012). "Hasund er tidenes Hødd-spiller" (in Norwegian). Sunnmørsposten. Archived from the original on 4 January 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2012.	Local newspaper	? Article inaccessible (dead link)	Routine coverage in a local newspaper article	✘ No
"Geir Hasund heteste navnet i fotballens høstjakt" (in Norwegian). Norwegian News Agency. 8 October 1992.	Norwegian News Agency	I expect so although I am unable to access it due to it being offline	Looks like more routine transfer speculation after he banged in a few goals in the second tier	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 19:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have been somewhat of an important player in SK Brann history. There are sources out there, this is via the Daily Mail to lfhistory.net Which is part of Liverpool history recognising the player, I expect there are more off-line sources newspaper articles in Norwegian archives. Completely disagree with this nomination and article assessment. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I wonder whether you correctly understand this process. If a passing mention in a deprecated source is the best you can find then your keep vote doesn't carry too much weight. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage. --- Løken (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had to dig quite deep but managed to find this and this in Bergensavisen and then some coverage in Rogalands Avis and also Haugesunds Avis. The sources used in the article aren't great, I agree with that, but because sources exist, per WP:NEXIST, the article should be kept. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 25 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.