Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Frantzen

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. Just about enought to satisfy GNG Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Frantzen

[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)

Squeaks by on WP:NFOOTY as he made two brief appearances in an alleged 'fully professional league' 9/10 years ago. In the first he appears to have been substituted after 29 minutes and in the second he was substituted on in the 90th minute. Fails WP:GNG as he apparently decided to focus on his day job. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. If sources are found which demonstrate GNG then please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 24 appearances for a fully professional club, albeit a yo-yo one between top and 2nd division. 8 year career. This seems like a nomination on a technicality. Also, has article on numerous other wikis. Abcmaxx (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there is plenty of in-depth coverage available albeit from the same local paper each time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not entirely convinced but I think the sources found by Spiderone just about nudge this into a GNG pass. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:57, 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.