Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geir Hasund


 * 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Geir Hasund

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed PROD with the wording: "nonsense". But demonstrably the article subject doesn't meet either WP:NFOOTBALL (having played well before the Norwegian men's football league was 'fully professional') or WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. GiantSnowman 19:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to have been somewhat of an important player in SK Brann history. There are sources out there, this is via the Daily Mail to lfhistory.net Which is part of Liverpool history recognising the player, I expect there are more off-line sources newspaper articles in Norwegian archives. Completely disagree with this nomination and article assessment. Govvy (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I wonder whether you correctly understand this process. If a passing mention in a deprecated source is the best you can find then your keep vote doesn't carry too much weight. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - sufficient coverage. --- Løken (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I had to dig quite deep but managed to find this and this in Bergensavisen and then some coverage in Rogalands Avis and also Haugesunds Avis. The sources used in the article aren't great, I agree with that, but because sources exist, per WP:NEXIST, the article should be kept. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:42, 25 February 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.