Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Andreassen

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. Fenix down (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Andreassen

[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)

Technically meets WP:NFOOTY after a single 10-minute substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' 18 years ago. The rest of his career has meandered through the lower divisions semi-pro ranks. No evidence of any non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as an example of where notability guidelines rub poorly up against each other. NFOOTY is a bit of a meme, and permits functionally undeletable permastubs for people with parodically slim claims to notability like this. Ultimately, while I on the whole take the "passing one of GNG/SNG gives you a free pass" position, I think it fails for things like the weakest forms of sports notability. (Mind you, you really could have broken these nominations up over a couple days -- they aren't going anywhere.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one appearance is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources presented in the article should be enough to meet GNG, especially the coverage from Aftenposten and Romerikes Blad. Mentoz (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of references, but the way they are brought into the article suggests routine transfer reporting, stats and the like, needs more to indicate where the significant coverage is, particularly given a lot appears offline.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GiantSnowman. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Mentoz86: would there be any chance of analysing the sources for me (i.e. using {{Source assess table}}) as I don't speak Norweigan? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I conducted this search and was unable to find any substantial coverage, therefore I believe that the subject does not pass WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 22 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.