Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeppe Kjær


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeppe Kjær

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on a an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep- meets WP:GNG which shouldn't be a surprise given he's been averaging a goal every 2 games for the last 7 years on teams on the cusp of entering the top Danish league. Media examples are, ,  Nfitz (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - He passes WP:GNG due to significant media coverage as shown by Nfitz. IJA (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The three sources above in no way satisfy GNG. The first two are routine transfer talk which does not confirm GNG by long standing consensus and the third is from HB Koge's own website and is not a secondary source. Happy for recreation if he ever fulfills any notability criteria. Fenix down (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good afternoon (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The GNG says that for coverage to be significant it must 'address the topic directly and in detail'. I like to think that the reason it says this is that only with such coverage can a proper article be written. The coverage here, or at least what I can make of it running it through a machine translation, does not, in my view, rise to that level. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (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.