Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelle Roos


 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kelle Roos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD; player fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage - all I can see is WP:ROUTINE transfer news and sports joutnalism. Also fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully-professional league. The fact he is contracted to one is not enough - he needs actual game time - and saying he will play/be notable in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. Player is notable - has received significant coverage (for example, here) in reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails NFOOTY as discussed above. The link noted as "significant coverage" in the previous comment is no more than routine transfer speculation. A case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if / when he actually plays. Fenix down (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes GNG as noted by Tiller54. Also there are many sources in the article itself that demonstrate this, that are non-routine.  Such as . Nfitz (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has not played first team football yet, so fails WP:NFOOTY and has not received significant media coverage, so fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. He has not played in fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is almost exclusively transfer news, which does not amount to significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, one substantial piece of coverage has been provided, but multiple sources are required to meet the WP:GNG. All this will become moot if he ever makes an on-field appearance with Derby County, of course.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty  845  20:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep—This player has received coverage in multiple independent sources—including BBC Sports—in different countries and different languages. I’m not an expert on notability, but that seems to rise to the level of substantial coverage in secondary sources. Certain Wikipedia readers might very well want to know about this person. --Vindeniträden (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 11:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, coverage tends to be around transfer news/gossip rather than career exploits. Nothing significant to pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 11:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete There are sources, so that much is on the books. The problem is that the sources don't establish notability for the subject. Sourcing is only part of the equation. The other part is getting the sources to say that the subject meets WP:N which in this case is WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I can tell he comes up short there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 19 February 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.