Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvin Dahlqvist


 * 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. The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Edvin Dahlqvist

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails GNG and the spirit of NFOOTBALL. Played less than 1 minute of pro-league football back in 2019, and now plays on the third tier. His 16 minutes in the cup for IFK was against an amateur team. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep it does seem to violate the spirit of WP:NFOOTY, but he nonetheless does pass WP:NFOOTY. Realistically, there probably should be a change to the standard as playing in the 90th minute and stoppage time in one top level match is not really enough for notability, but per the current guidelines I feel I have to go with keep. I very much understand the nomination rationale though. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 00:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 *  Delete Move to draft While he meets WP:NFOOTY by the narrowest of technicalities having been subbed in the 89th minute of an Allsvenskan match against AIK, there is long-standing consensus at WP:FOOTY that a footballer must continue to play at that level and meet WP:GNG. As is stated at WP:NSPORT, meeting the sport-specific criteria doesn't mean that an article must be kept. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Updating my !vote to show preference to move this to draft. As stated by GiantSnowman, he is still young with his career still ahead of him. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - as he is a young player with ongoing career, and we should allow for that. GiantSnowman 10:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I could not find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject that currently exists. Would not be opposed to move to draft as this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. There look to be a lot of soccer-related bios/profiles on random sites (as with most other players), but there seemed to be a void in my search of anything I could point to that would qualify the subject for a stand-alone article in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. Moving to a draft wouldn't improve Wikipedia as it makes the article harder for readers to find, and less likely to be improved and open to deletion in six months. NemesisAT (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.   scope_creep Talk  16:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - although I contested the initial PROD, I'm still not convinced that he's notable and the general consensus is that failing GNG is more important than one minute of NFOOTBALL. Best sources I can find on him are UF and GP but these are fairly weak in my view Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:NFOOTY. Sources looks OK as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Were you able to locate any that showed WP:SIGCOV of Dahlqvist? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No clear consensus, current keep votes are focusing on NFOOTY whilst the delete votes are focusing on the more important GNG. Extending to try to deliver consensus one way or the other. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:NFOOTY further subject is 22 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are WP:SNGs inherenlty less important than WP:GNG? At WP:SNG it's stated Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article. So my question is, is meeting WP:SNG but not necessarily is WP:GNG a problem or is it that, as stated articles which pass an SNG [...] may still be deleted? (Note: I did !vote keep above, but per the re-lister's comment and some other !votes, I wanted to see what others' thoughts were on this question because it seems to be rather central to the discussion) snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 21:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the FAQ at the top of WP:NFOOTBALL gives guidance on this. The answer to Q2 is No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per common AfD discussions and consensus from the soccer community, this is found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. GauchoDude (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: The thing is, we probably have more than 150 AFDs where footballers with 1 pro game got their article deleted. I wouldn't have nominated it if this hadn't become the general consensus. That's why I wrote "fails the spirit of NFOOTBALL". In my opinion the article fails the SNG, as I don't think the SNG was meant to retain 1-minute players. At least that's not how the SNG works now, following the probably 150 (maybe more) AFDs. Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, this consensus can be found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, last bullet point. GauchoDude (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable according to WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore, he is a young player with a long career ahead of him. Today, he transferred to Landskrona BoIS in Superettan (tier 2) and if he continues to develop, it is likely that he will soon play in Allsvenskan (tier 1, fully professional league) again. // Mattias321 (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this, I've added this plus a reference to the article. I don't know anything about football so if someone could check what I've added is correct that would be fab. This further shows why the article should be kept, the player is still active and new coverage is becoming available. NemesisAT (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * NFOOTY does not confer notability, it presumes a topic will meet GNG. If it does not meet GNG then meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He is still young and already has a top-tier appearance. The sources look ok so this is definitely a WP:NFOOTY pass. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 15:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete sources do not demonstrate significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. We shouldn't keep this based on 1 minute of professional football when there's no evidence he'll play in an FPL ever again (he doesn't currently after all). If he joins and plays for a fully-professional club in the future, then can be re-created, but it's WP:TOOSOON right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Is young, might be notable in the future" is pure WP:CRYSTAL, and while it is sometimes maybe justifiable in cases where the subject has recently signed to a pro team but the season hasn't started yet so they don't have coverage, in this case the dude was a very late sub in one pro match and has since been playing in lower tiers with no indication of returning to pro. !votes based purely on his technically meeting NFOOTY are also not in line with the guidelines, which very explicitly defer to/require GNG. If coverage doesn't currently exist for a subject, then they shouldn't have an article on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Is young, might be notable in the future" is one of the few valid uses of draft space. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftspace is not an indefinite holding area, and drafts are deleted if not edited in 6 months. No evidence he'll meet WP:GNG in the next few months, and he isn't playing in an FPL, so won't meet WP:NFOOTY in that time. If he was playing in an FPL, I would suggest draftspace, but think it'll just get left in draftspace indefinitely (or deleted in 6 months as abandoned draft). Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.