Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gints Freimanis


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Gints Freimanis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neither the Irish nor Latvian leagues are fully professional so the player fails WP:ATHLETE. Lack of significant coverage in reliable (or in this case, any) sources means that he also fails general notability guidelines -- Big  Dom  23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has previosly been nominated. Result was 'Keep', please close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionnsci (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Articles can be nominated for deletion more than once. -- Big  Dom  08:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep played top-level football in two different European national leagues Eldumpo (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played at a fully professioanl level, and the available news sources only appear to be run-of-the-mill sports journalism which is insufficient to establish notability (WP:NTEMP). Bettia   it's a puppet!  12:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia   it's a puppet!  12:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous AfD. The consensus was then that he met WP:GNG, because of significant coverage in major Irish newspapers as in here amd here (the latter requires a subscription to the Irish Times to be viewed). I see no reason to overule the previously established consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But as Bettia says, those sources are just run-of-the-mill sports journalism and do not pass WP:NTEMP so can you please explain how he passes the general notability guidelines? -- Big  Dom  17:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep For all reasons listed above. Rebel1916 (talk)Rebel1916 21 Feb 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep as above. Fionnsci (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I think the two Evening Herald articles are signficant coverage in a reliable source. Perhaps they are "run of the mill sports journalism", but that's enough to pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Week Delete: This is a tough call, but I think it really boils down to whether this is a case of WP:GNG or WP:NTEMP. No one doubts whether the sources are reliable, so initially it looks like he satisfies WP:GNG, but on a closer look I don't think this is the right way to look at it. I believe, after reading the article mentioned (I don't have the times subscription so didn't have access to the second one) that in this case the player got a boom of coverage just because a team picked him up and people were curious about the recruiting. After that I don't see any subsequent coverage. I was actually going to vote keep, but then I thought to myself what is this article really about, and the answer to that is that the article is about the recruitment event and not about the person. Of course the article mentions the person being recruited a lot, but that does not make him notable. MATThematical (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2010 (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.