Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Jakobsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Deor (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jakobsen[edit]

Alexander Jakobsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL

The article provides no evidence that the player has appeared in a professional league. Reckless182 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the initiator of this deletion discussion I wish to withdraw the nomination as it has now been made clear that the article meets the criteria for WP:NFOOTBALL. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Player does pass NFOOTY, apologies for stating otherwise earlier. Needs to be improved to show GNG, but as per current consensus, young players who have played in a FPL are deemed notable regardless of the number of games played. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He isn't deemed notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league nor has he any international caps. IJA (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The last commenter makes a sourced assertion that, in view of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, would seem on its face to back a claim of NFOOTY, I'd like to at least a little concurring or dissenting opinion on that before closing this. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The second division in the Netherlands appears to be professional even though yes those appearances are for a reserve side Seasider91 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above - Fails GNG + NFOOTY. –Davey2010(talk) 21:39, 2 August 2014
  • Comment - I don't understand why the Delete !votes all indicate that Jakobsen hasn't played in a fully-pro league, when he had played in the Eerste Divisie (listed as fully-pro at WP:FPL) - even scoring a goal in his debut. I'm not sure the article could satisfy the GNG, but if we follow the herd and !vote based on NFOOTBALL, it should be a clear consensus for keep. Jogurney (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2014 (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.