Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elías Rafn Ólafsson


 * 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a first relisting. BD2412 T 01:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Elías Rafn Ólafsson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The player does not have any single appearance for a fully professional club or hasn't represented senior national team. Fails NFOOTBALL Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 10:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

So the subject fails to have enough sigcov thus failing general notability criteria also. If we are keeping an article on the basis of these things, lot of footballers who fails NFOOTY would have got an independent article now. Regards Kichu🐘 Need any help? 14:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. I added a few sources in the article and there is plenty more in the Icelandic media, where he has been covered pretty well for the last few years. . Alvaldi (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder how the subject easily passes GNG. He has never played for any fully professional club hence fails WP:NFOOTBALL. So if we are considering general WP:GNG criteria to establish notability, lets analyse the sources you added.
 * this is about the player being affected by corona virus
 * this is a news about his contract extension
 * this is a piece from an interview with the player's coach regarding his performance
 * this is also the same. Analysing his performance
 * another piece from an interview.
 * interview
 * If several arcticles about the subject from multiple reliable national sources, including lengthy interviews about his career, news about his every move, performances, health status and more is not WP:SIGCOV in your books then what excactly is? The vast majority of footballers in the world do not get featured in their national media like this player does, including some who pass WP:FOOTBALL by the virtue of having played one or two games in a professional league. Alvaldi (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided are just some incidential and trivial coverage. I dont know how an interview with this player's coach, who talks about his every move and news report about him getting a disease is giving sigcov to this player itself. Also just getting feautured in national media like you said is not enough for sigcov. Even if we combine these all sources, that is also not enough. Regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 16:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The explanation for trivial mentions is found in WP:GNG. The articles about him do not fall under trivial mentions. This is not a trivial mention. Neither is this. Or this. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There is also nothing in WP:GNG that says that interviews with a subject or with a third party about the subject is not part of WP:SIGCOV. And regarding the often mentioned article about him getting Covid-19, what non-notable player gets coverage about getting Covid-19 in every major media outlet in his country? Alvaldi (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We had almost deleted all the similiar articles of footballers in the past. Since this is a footballer, its important that he must pass NFOOTBALL or he must have high significant coverage.Significant coverage in a general GNG criteria is that when a person does some notable work or a series of notable work over a period of years, independent media sources, such as newspapers, magazines etc, should provide detailed coverage about the subject in the form of biography article in detail talking about the subject, his life and his notable works. We would need these type of sources. As I can see there is nothing like that merits an article, even if combine all the sources. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 18:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a link to the Wikipedia guideline you are quoting and perhaps similar Afd discussions that ended up being deleted? Alvaldi (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked me to explain sigcov and I just did that here from my perspective. And I dont have time to dig up any past AFD's. I just said that because I have seen lof of articles like this getting deleted in the past. Regards and good luck with this AFD. Kichu🐘 <i style="color:green">Need any help?</i> 23:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Certainly looks like there might be enough for GNG here but there isn't a clear consensus one way or the other.
 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. None of the sources in the article or presented above are sufficient for GNG in my opinion, just standard footballer ones. GiantSnowman 20:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Fails football notability guidelines for now, probably passes GNG given the coverage from two different countries. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the coverage is not indepth enough to actually lead to passing GNG, it is just routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG. Tons of coverage by neutral third parties.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the three sources cited by Alvaldi in a response above Fotbolti Visir MBL are enough for GNG. The sources are reliable and they provide more than a trivial mention. GNG is not a ridiculously high bar, we don't require for there to be enough sources that the article could be built into a GA. There are definitely enough sources going into depth to provide more than a simple stub. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.