Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915)

Add links
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 no consensus /trainwreck. The first six as a batch were probably fine, but further inclusion of 12 articles was not going to come to a consensus with NSPORTS concurrently being in the middle of a contentious debate. I would suggest rather than 19 separate AfDs, which no one wants, that the creator, nominator and interested parties see if draftification might be an amenable solution until such point as suitable sourcing can be identified. Star Mississippi 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
Leo Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kaj Nielsen (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And others listed below by Cbl62
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created in a rapid spree by creator based on database entries only (a behaviour for which creator has been previously sanctioned), thus failing WP:NOTDATABASE at the very least and also failing WP:GNG until such time somebody actually looks for sources. Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation. These are the archetypical example of cookie-cutter-no-effort article creation which is not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. the rationale is that there is WP:NORUSH to have these articles and mainspace is not indefinite draft space. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete is fine by me, and what I was initially suggesting (if a bit verbose about it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These all meet WP:NFOOTY having played in international matches for their national team. Creating articles rapidly is not a valid reason for deletion (and these were done 2+ months ago). This is a WP:POINTY nomination based on the previous AfD attempt at the similar article of Marcel Rewenig, their unhappiness with the closure, including this with the closer. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are terrible at mind reading; and for the last time, NFOOTY is not an inclusion criteria (by itself). "X played professional football" is not an exemption from meeting either WP:GNG or not falling into WP:NOT. WP:MEATBOT behaviour is grounds for sanctions, and we should not keep these articles indefinitely in mainspace if nobody is working to improve them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Due to failure to meet WP:GNG, and violation of WP:NOTDATABASE - an article sourced only to databases cannot be anything but a database. Further, I note that WP:NFOOTY is not sufficient reason to keep; per WP:NSPORT, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soft delete all the Nielsens, per my above reasoning, and per Cbl62. BilledMammal (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Draftify; while I don't believe this articles are sufficiently developed that they will be useful to anyone who does manage to find sources, it appears like a reasonable compromise and I can support it now and for future groups like this. BilledMammal (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, for now. Five different bios about different people in one AFD is not a good idea IMO 19 different bios in a single AFD nomination is absolutely absurd, and this should be speedily closed in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Updated comment at 00:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is fundamentally the same: these are all WP:NOTDATABASE violations, and there's WP:NORUSH to have them in article space if nobody is going to spend time improving them - and the article creator is obviously not interested in doing that, so it would be unfair to burden the rest of the community with that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all clear violations of WP:NOTDATABASE, and if you consider a database to be a primary source, WP:OR - as such, they are appropriate to group together. Ideally, the prod notice would not have been challenged without correcting the WP:NOT violation, but as it was we are now here. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: I often share your concern with bundling, but in this case the bundling is appropriate given that each of the articles were created at the same time, one being copy pasted from the other, and having identical sourcing and virtually identical content with only minor tweaks. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 There is nothing "random" about the grouping of these articles for deletion. As noted below, all of them (19 actually) were created at the same with only minor tweaks. They are appropriately dealt with as a group. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete the Nielsens. The articles were created as part of a rapid spree in which articles were created in less than an hour on 19 Danish football players named Nielsen:
  1. Wilhelm Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:38, 1,358‎ characters
  2. Poul Nielsen (footballer, born 1915) Dec 21 at 19:34 +1,343‎ characters
  3. Leo Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:31 +1,334‎ characters
  4. Kaj Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:28 +1,360‎ characters
  5. Kai Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:26 +1,341‎ characters
  6. Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) Dec 21 at 19:23 +1,358‎ characters
  7. John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Dec 21 at 19:20 +1,341 characters‎
  8. Hugo Nielsen Dec 21 at 19:18 +1,342‎ characters
  9. Henry Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 19:17 +1,367‎ characters
  10. Frank Nielsen (Danish footballer) Dec 21 at 19:13 +1,327‎ characters
  11. Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954) Dec 21 at 19:11 +1,380 characters‎
  12. Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1938) Dec 21 at 19:09 +1,322‎ characters
  13. Erik Nielsen (footballer, born 1932) Dec 21 at 19:07 +1,359‎ characters
  14. Benny Nielsen (footballer, born 7 March 1951) Dec 21 at 19:01 +1,346 characters
  15. Arthur Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:59 +1,354‎ characters
  16. Arno Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:57 +1,348‎ characters
  17. Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953) Dec 21 at 18:54 +1,305 characters
  18. Aksel Nielsen (footballer) Dec 21 at 18:46 +1,355‎ characters
  19. Ernst Nielsen Dec 21 at 18:45 +1,367‎ characters
The articles are identical microstubs of about 1,350 characters, each copy/pasted with only minor tweaks (principally changing the given name) and supported only by the same generic citation to "EU Football and "worldfootball.ne". There is no SIGCOV presented on any of them. Deletion should be without prejudice to someone re-creating proper articles on any of the Nielsens who are actually notable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I share Joseph2302's concerns about this mass nomination, hard to see each on their own merits and I too wonder if WP:BEFORE has been done. I'm also not a fan of the initial PROD, which partly read "...Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it, i.e. keeping a red link to encourage article (and not database entry) creation." Why is the nominator not being bothered to do the actual legwork? Surely that's what this site is about, users adding to other users work? There seems to be too much lazy editing going on these days, perhaps there should be a term for it? Construction-shy, expansion-shy, work-shy? StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AssociateAffiliate: WP:BEFORE says "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". The main concern is not notability. As for the rest of your comment, "collaborative editing" does not mean that we should accept sub-standard entries which violate one or more core policies (in this case, WP:NOT) simply because there is a remote possibility that an unspecified someone with enough time and will to do so could possibly make them into something more useful. It's not like we're deleting particularly valuable content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2] is the type of simple content you could literally program a bot to create... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) edit: rewrite with php style variable syntax to make it more obvious 20:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AssociateAffiliate: We have here 19 near-identical, one-line articles created at the rate of about two per minute. When microstub articles like this are created en masse, how much time do you think should be spent on WP:BEFORE before nominating each of them? Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all international footballers who meet WP:NFOOTY. Articles need improving, not deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, an entirely irrelevant comment which completely misses the mark. NFOOTY is not a standard for inclusion by itself, and does not exempt articles from GNG, much less exempt them from WP:NOTDATABASE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment is entirely relevant. WP:NFOOTY is a reasonable assumption of notability. The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". --SuperJew (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there a website that contains old Danish newspapers? And has anyone done a BEFORE search on any of these? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just want to point out that the editor who nominated the first batch articles (then said "Oh, and those as well" after another editor listed more) is also the same editor who opened an RFC on overhauling NSPORTS. This appears to me to be a little WP:POINTY in that respect. I would suggest that these types of AfDs, especially bulk AfDs, be minimized unless/until NSPORTS is overhauled. Having said my piece on that, I recuse myself from !voting in this AfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:POINT only applies where an editor does something they don't support to make a point and as RandomCanadian does believe these articles should be deleted it doesn't apply here. BilledMammal (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed. The POINT being made is that RandomCanadian wants drastic changes to NSPORT, seemingly almost to the point of removing NSPORT as an SNG altogether; thus we have the mass bundled AfD pushing GNG as one of the reasons. The reason given in the initial PROD doesn't even address under which policy the article was nominated.
      I agree that this mass creation of essentially identical microstubs was inappropriate, but mass deletion shouldn't be the answer. I know I said I was recusing myself from !voting, but I rescind my recusal and will be !voting below. However, I will not !vote to keep them. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am not a fan of bundled AfDs and have often voted to keep on procedural grounds when disparate people are bundled. But this one? This is probably as valid a bundled AfD as one can get: all 19 articles created on the same day (the same hour actually); all 19 articles dealing with 20th century Danish footballers named Nielsen; all 19 article of the same length and depth; all 19 articles citing the same databases; all 19 articles virtually identical (tweaking only minor details). Frankly, it seems that many in the FOOTY project will use whatever arguments are available to save these microstubs ... actually, I take that back, as there is actually one important argument that I don't hear being made, i.e., a showing of some actual SIGCOV. This is the kind of group response that tempts me to vote "Support" on Subproposal 3 and get rid of NFOOTY altogether. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. All the subjects appear to meet WP:NFOOTY, at least on the surface. I disapprove of the mass-creation of so many nearly identical microstubs, but I also disagree with the mass deletion of all of them. Move them into Draft – where they should have been created initially – to provide an opportunity for expansion and improvement. If they cannot be improved within a reasonable time period as determined by the standards at WP:AFC, then they can be deleted outright. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954), which has been expanded a bit, unless evidence can be provided that any of rest of them meet the GNG. We do not need database entries masquerading as biographical "articles" that completely lack references to coverage in secondary sources. Time to put a stop to this. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, procedurally oppose the nomination of all of these, instead of case by case.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ortizesp: What do you need to take on a case by case basis? Is Leo Nielsen (19 February 1918 – 13 June 1981) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in one match for the Denmark national football team in 1946.[2] so radically different from Kaj Nielsen (23 December 1926 – 2 September 2002) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in three matches for the Denmark national football team from 1952 to 1953.[2] that we need to have two different discussions on them? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep these need to be evaluated individually or this will become a clusterfuck. No prejudice against individual AfDs on all of these articles where we can properly evaluate this as I seriously doubt WP:BEFORE has been or even can be done in an AfD like this. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles for Deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. "Should be deleted until such time somebody can actually bother to do the actual legwork and find proper sources for it" in the nomination suggests that the OP did not carry out a WP:BEFORE search on all articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:DEL-REASON, violation of WP:NOT is reason to delete an article. If you want to keep these database entries in article space you either need to find coverage (if it exists), or remove WP:NOTDATABASE from WP:NOT. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:DEL-REASON states "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". This requires a WP:BEFORE, which I doubt has been carried out for all 19 (!!) pages proposed for deletion here. NemesisAT (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:BEFORE doesn't apply here; it states "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" - in this case, the main concern is the violation of WP:NOT. And if correcting the WP:NOT violations is practical, then please demonstrate it - I will remove my support for deleting any article where it has been possible to correct the violation - at the moment, this only applies to Flemming Nielsen (footballer, born 1954). BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nemesis: How much do you consider is "practical" in attempting to fix 19 near-identical WP:NOTDATABASE entries which were created at a pace of one every 2 or 3 minutes? When I create (or improve) an article, I look for the sources before doing so. Here, even the article creator couldn't be arsed to do so, and his articles are clear WP:NOT violations. Even if I wanted to look for them (despite having absolutely no obligation to do so here), "Nielsen" is apparently a very common Danish name and looking for many of these actually yields plenty of other, actually notable footballers (to take as an obvious example, Poul Nielsen is also the name of the joint all-time best goalscorer for the Danish national time...). So, even if I had to, no, it is not a problem which can be resolved under any reasonable definition of "practical". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All articles have at least 2 RS, all have played at least one game for the Danish national team Josey Wales Parley 17:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseywales1961: All the articles have exactly the same sources (which are very inclusive and indiscriminate databases, thus not very convincing); and "played at least one game for the Danish national team" does not grant footballers a superpower to ignore WP:NOT (or any other policy or guideline). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I somehow doubt that those claiming that it's impossible to discuss this many articles at once would actually be willing to discuss each article individually with much more depth than "keep per NSPORTS". Conveniently, these persons all vanish and refuse to talk any further when it's pointed out to them how these articles are all essentially the same: stubs referencing the same pair of databases, created minutes apart from each other, with zero signifcant coverage. Discussing the same thing 5 (or 19?) times over is plainly a waste of time, and a single bundled nomination is fully justified. Avilich (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep RandomCanadian should know not to be this stupid and that biographies should be nominated individually. Govvy (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: I think you should rephrase that. BilledMammal (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: Why? It's a stupid mistake to bundle multiple biographies together and the nominator knows this. It's not a true grouping as people have unique lives. He should send these articles separately to AfD. Govvy (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not WP:CIVIL. Also, it's an appropriate grouping, as discussed above. BilledMammal (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally don't reply to personal attacks, but I'll note that no reasoning has been provided to support the premise made that "biographies should [implied: always] be nominated individually", nor has any reasoning been provided to attempt to counter the argument why this grouping is entirely appropriate. In short, it is an evidence-less statement, and can't even be classified as some form of fallacy... Although, given the number of people who have made the exact same type of comment, one could call it an attempt at proof by assertion. Or, more crudely, a plain and blatant filibuster based on procedural nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft to wikipedia's version of civility, people take that way too seriously, and besides, the nomination hasn't looked at how, when and why these people made it into the Danish national team. They played club football too, the articles are missing so much information. Let's take one of these articles to start with John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911) Lets ask, how did he make it to the national scene for the country? Well, he played club football as well.
(From the source in the article and not added)
Club career
07/1941 - 06/1944 - BK Fremad Amager
07/1934 - 06/1941 - KB København
07/1930 - 06/1934 - BK Fremad Amager
[1] Tells us he had a club career, and that should be a loop to look for newspaper articles at the top for his time at the clubs he played for. However, this is also WW2, so what did he do during the war years? Has anyone bother to look that up. Or even tried? I am sorry, but again I truly believe on my single assessment on one article that there is missing information to work with. And that's my view of one article. It's down to each article assessment, not a total. The bundle is based on the national caps and not the true content which can be provided. Hence, how, and why. Simple questions to look for, to throw these articles under the bus without research is blind nominations and I hate that. Hence, it's a stupid nomination. Govvy (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument. However, it is also entirely irrelevant, as the nomination here is not made on the basis of notability, but on the clear and blatant failure of WP:NOTDATABASE, as these are all clearly zero-effort articles created from copy-pasting from a database. It is not true that sports articles should get immunity from deletion, and it is even less true that I should bother to go spend hours digging through old danish newspapers when the creator literally spent seconds to create them. Insisting otherwise only shows how nominating each of these individually would make it even worse and require even more bureaucracy to clean-up the results from a few thoughtless actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:NOT nomination; it is in full compliance with process. All that will happen if these articles are procedurally kept is the next day there will be eighteen separate nominations, and unless you are planning to !vote "Keep, meets WP:NFOOTY" in each of them they will be deleted, and the only difference will be that more time will have been wasted. BilledMammal (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odd argument to use WP:NOTDATABASE, how is the information indiscriminate? Sadly the truth is that wikipedia is part database of information. The information on those articles are all clear and precise, this person played for the national team of this country. Do you have something against stub articles? Govvy (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the only sources which mention something are databases, it's hard to argue that these articles are anything but database entries masquerading as encyclopedic articles. Encyclopedias provide summaries of knowledge, they provide context for the data presented, they provide relevant background information. Much more than simple one-liners. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate one-liners created in a robot-like fashion. "Has played professional football" is not a magic keyword that somehow exempts any subject from that very basic requirement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDATABASE applies because articles sourced entirely to databases cannot be anything other than a database entry; they cannot have encyclopedic value, as they lack explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • procedural keep as this type of bundling is entirely inappropriate. Re-nominate separately. This discussion is already a clusterfuck and it's been about 36 hours. GiantSnowman 11:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. SN54129 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete all - Bundling is appropriate given their creation in a spree using the same (bad) sourcing. No objection to recreation with actual sourcing. FOARP (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All They meet NFOOTY with international appearances. The articles do need improving, however. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting NFOOTY is not a valid reason to keep articles which fail WP:NOT. Nor does meeting NFOOTY give sportspersons the magical superpower to ignore any and all other requirements of Wikipedia policy. RandomCanadian (talk /

contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, NFOOTY states that footballers are considered notable if the Nielsens have played in "any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA." which they have, so it in fact is a valid reason. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify all - this is a complete mess and I'm not opposed to keeping on procedural grounds either. If any action should be taken at all then move all of them to draft space to give time to find proper sources and to add meaningful content. All comfortably pass WP:NFOOTBALL so the potential for expansion is there. Articles need improving but outright deletion seems inappropriate. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • NFOOTY isn't a reliable predictor that there are sources that would support the expansion of any of these articles. BilledMammal (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there isn't any harm in giving the editors that do believe sources exist that could be used to improve the article the chance to do so in draft space? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none; I just disagreed with the word "potential"; possibility would have been more accurate. However, given how little content is in these articles, I don't believe that they will be useful for editors seeking to write an article about one of these players. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none? Ye of little faith, kb.dk has a large archive of stuff to go through for the Danish reader. It's hard work when I don't know a word of Danish. Offline sources for the win! Govvy (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is none referred to the harm, not the coverage. As for that archive, it is only internet archives. If there is coverage of these individuals, it won't be in those archives - see my previous comment for the newspaper archive. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify all - I struggle with bundled AfDs like this because it's difficult to evaluate the sources to determine if WP:GNG is met on all of them. However, in this case, the sources are almost certainly offline (where I lack the access and language skill to evaluate them properly), so it is just an impossible task to look into GNG compliance unless someone can post the sources for us. As such, pushing these to draft space gives that someone the opportunity to make a case for them passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep the bundling of bios was already inappropriate under WP:BUNDLE, but to then also change the pages being proposed for deletion in the middle of the discussion? Definitely think these need to be re-proposed and evaluated on their merits individually. Jay eyem (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jay eyem, Ortizesp, Govvy, and GiantSnowman: To be clear, you have no issue with each of these being re-nominated individually the day after they are closed, despite the fact that it appears clear they will all be deleted in such a discussion, and the only effect will be to waste everyone's time? BilledMammal (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would probably have issue, I think they should all be kept individually anyways.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then make the argument for that here, rather than !voting procedural keep. Because at the moment, they fail WP:GNG and more importantly, WP:NOT, and cannot reasonably be kept. BilledMammal (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Waste everybody's time? You mean like inappropriately bundling several bios together in the first place, then nominating additional articles DURING a discussion is not already wasting everybody's time? How about accusing someone of canvassing because they notified the relevant WikiProject, something the page explicitly says is acceptable? That seems like a waste of everybody's time. As is the bad faith accusation that WP:FOOTY is a partisan group. Not that time really matters here because there is no deadline and specifically we should not rush to delete anything. So slow your roll and stop acting like the outcome is predetermined. Jay eyem (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jay eyem: When you say "no rush", do you also mean "no rush to copy-paste articles from databases"? The creator of these is probably the most egregious offender in that aspect. If nobody is willing to put time into improving those articles, and instead people are going to insist on procedural nonsense filibustering, that quite rightly justifies that those articles shouldn't have been created in the first place. Wikipedia is not a database, not a directory-like listing of context-less entries, and most importantly, not a sports fansite. These articles are all exact copy-pastes of each others with details changed. It is simply not true that sportsperson get a magic shield from meeting inclusion requirements the moment they're created, and it is absolutely infuriating that people are seemingly fine with them when every other single article on the encyclopedia requires people to put time and effort into it. If this were absolutely any freakin other subject, those articles, which are blatant and unambiguous WP:NOT violations, would long have been deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably because it was wildly inappropriate to bundle these in the first place, and even more inappropriate to add additional articles AFTER the discussion was already underway. WP:MULTIAFD makes it pretty clear that there are four categories of articles that may be bundled: 1. A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles. This is clearly not the case here, because they represent different individuals. 2. A group of hoax articles by the same editor. These do not appear to be hoaxes by any reasonable definition. 3. A group of spam articles by the same editor. While I find the creation of these articles to be premature and lacking in content, the articles clearly are not spam. And 4. A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products. This is clearly not applicable in any shape or form. Additionally, the page states that for the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. As you are fully aware there is a current discussion (also, far from a consensus) regarding this issue, so if anything this bundled nomination should have taken place AFTER the conclusion of that discussion. And while you can add additional articles to a nomination after the first post, MULTIAFD also states that for the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion. Except there was already substantive discussion when those were added to the nomination! And honestly? My personal opinion would be to move all of them to the draft space. Kind of like this recent AfD which was just a few months ago. The difference here is that the nomination here is really truly a trainwreck, especially since this has that massive ongoing discussion at the village pump. Sometimes it's ok to ignore the rules, but I really don't think this is one of those times. Jay eyem (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • All those articles have exactly the same bloody content: $playerName ($dateOfBirth – $dateOfDeath) was a Danish footballer.[1] He played in $numberOfMatches for the Denmark national football team (from/during/in) $timePeriod.[2]; under slightly different titles. Now if like everybody else you're going to try some silly procedural obstructionism, that's your own choice. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • You need to calm the hell down. These are not "slightly" different titles, these are entirely different individuals who should all be evaluated on their own merits. So yes, they should have been nominated individually. I think you have become way too involved in this discussion if you feel the need to badger all the people that disagree with you. And if you are so concerned with people who are legitimately concerned about how poorly thought out this AfD was, then maybe you should have followed procedure in the first place. Jay eyem (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • These articles have been done at the same time and are "fill-in-the-blanks" variations. You are asking @RandomCanadian: to delete each one individually. They were created in mass, should they be discussed that way? Isn't this like throwing stuff on the wall and seeing what sticks? With other editors' time cleaning up? ReTeam (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'll just defer to SuperJew's earlier quote on the matter at hand: The question for AfD is "is this topic notable". The question you're asking is "is this a well-written article". This seems to be missing from the conversation even though it is the whole point of AfD. Far too much of the argument for deletion has been focused on the poor quality of the articles and not focused on notability, for which players should be evaluated individually. Otherwise you might as well include every single football stub in existence for this AfD (which seems to be much of the purpose of the ongoing village pump discussion). Honestly, I don't think the proposal for deletion would be getting nearly as much pushback if they were just nominated individually, and I don't see what would be so hard about doing that. Bios in particular should be evaluated on their own merits. Jay eyem (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I said previously, I can demonstrate that WP:NFOOTY is partisan, and thus notifying them like was done is votestacking, if that will convince you that the notifications are inappropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I mean feel free to try and prove that. I think it is completely absurd to accuse an entire project of being partisan, but if you're willing to try and convince myself and others then do so. Jay eyem (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep or Draftify Per above, many appear notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- Løken (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they lack evidence of notability (as in significant coverage, not some dubious rule that players for national teams are always notable, sources be damned). People can always recreate them if and when significant coverage is found. Until then, very little is lost by deleting these, it's not as if by reading these "articles" you get an actual attempt at a basic biography of these people, but instead you get a single element only. And on a procedural note, if they can be created in batch, they can be deleted in batch. Fram (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ALL Delete the first five Redirect per @Joseph2302: Don't keep (I didn't mean to be shouting on the first one) I think that @Lugnuts: makes @RandomCanadian:'s point pretty clearly here: [2]. I want to emphasize "I was simply going through a list of international footballers with no articles". This indicates to me a belief that any Danish footballer who has ever played in even one game (three of the first five) deserves an article because sometime in the future somebody may be bored enough to improve one. I think that a potential list is being turned into a flood of near-useless stubs.
My impression, by looking at their userpage, is that this editor may count articles created simply because of the count, not because of their content or potential. AGF whatever, this is what they blast all over their user page, the importance of their count.
Now I imagine we will go back to the process and pretend that any one of these articles (I only checked the first five) has any potential value as an article instead of as part of a list. This is going back to 2005-2010 when people were making up articles just trying to get Wikipedia going. It's going now, there are too many stubs left over from then, we don't need to actively create them for possible potential any more. ReTeam (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can you vote to delete all in good faith when you "only checked the first five"? That to me signals the need for these to be nominated individually and not all at the same time. NemesisAT (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder how someone with only a few dozen edits over a decade, including only three or four edits in the past five years, would stumble across my talkpage and/or this AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have corrected my post to your liking? Process. How can you possibly use my opinion as a reason to assume there are other articles that may have value? That doesn't follow.
Your question is fair, this is a lost then later found account that I am using to keep this garbage away from my real content. Despite your ego I don't know anyone here, I was wandering around Denmark and noticed this. Of course I checked your talk page trying to understand your motive, which I think I do. ReTeam (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ReTeam: Please have another look given the concerns with redirect noted below. I think "soft delete" (which allows for recreation with better sourcing) or "draftify" are the better outcomes here. Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I can't comment because I don't know the proceedure. I object to these being thrown up as stub articles but don't know/care what happens to them. Joseph2302 seemed to have a resonable idea, don't throw them out, put them somewhere, but I have no idea where/how. Sorry. ReTeam (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
"Draftify" would move the articles to draft space where they would have time to be developed further. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read Wikipedia:Drafts if you are not familiar, I didn't know what it meant when I first saw it myself. Jay eyem (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note to closer. IMO redirects are not the best outcome in cases such as "Allan Nielsen (footballer, born 1953)" or "John Nielsen (footballer, born 1911)", as these are not natural search terms. As for "Hugo Nielsen", I submit that the name is simply too common (a search turns up several notable or semi-notable persons with the name Hugo Nielsen and/or the other common Scandinavian variants, Neilsen/Nielson/Neilson/Nilsson) to redirect such a common search term to the list of Danish football players. I voted to "soft delete" but believe "draftify" is also a reasonable outcome. Either of these options permit subsequent efforts to create actual encyclopedic content on any of these players who may actually prove to be notable. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all It is high time we did something substantial to stop the flooding of Wikipedia with sub-stubs on non-notable sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @ReTeam: I am curious, how did you come to know about this AfD? Govvy (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[3] @ 0230 X pain/boredom. ReTeam (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of what Froztbyte mentions sounds like SIGCOV. Rather, it all sounds like brief mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bundling a score of footballers, many from near a century ago, many of which meet NFOOTBALL? List separately if necessary, and as above, some meet GNG. This is a terrible nomination. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of them meet WP:NOT; and none of them meet GNG as the sources are trivial mentions... As for meeting NFOOTBALL, that has no bearing whatsoever on meeting (or failing to meet) NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of them meet WP:NOT? I'm not sure what side you are arguing. I'd think all articles in Wikipedia should not meet NOT. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poul_Nielsen_(footballer,_born_1915)&oldid=1073184535"