Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Kindgen


 * 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Lars Kindgen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Of the five references included, 3 of them are sports database entries. Another is an interview, which as a primary source does not go towards notability. And the fifth, while in-depth, is from a source, erft-kurier, which I am not sure qualifies as a reliable source as it seems to be an advertising platform. Was draftified in hopes of improvment, but was returned to mainspace without improvement.  Onel 5969  TT me 10:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football,  and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @onel5969 - Please see the updated sources. Thanks.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per and  updates and citation population that has been added to the article since it was raised to AfD. To me there is enough to warrant a GNG pass. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of notability. What sources are significant? If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Govvy, Robby.is.on, and KatoKungLee., I found , , , , , and , among many more German sources. Definelty also has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not impressed by the level of coverage; these are mostly either passing mentions or interviews. –dlthewave ☎ 00:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interviews are valid coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which policy/guideline supports your position? WP:SIGCOV requires secondary sources, and WP:NOR makes it clear that interviews are considered primary sources for Wikipedia's purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - while interviews are valid coverage, as they are primary sources, they do not go towards WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 09:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The article has been refbombed with databases/interviews/brief mentions and non independent of Kindgen sources. Dougal18 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; Kindgen doesn't appear to be notable as a footballer or employee of the player's union since I cannot locate WP:SIGCOV in any online sources. There are some Q&A interviews such as the one with his youth club (linked at the de:wiki article) or at wuppertaler-rundschau.de (the same interview is hosted elsewhere too), but these lack independent coverage beyond a few brief statements about his career (while making 100+ appearances in the 2. Bundesliga seems to be a significant achievement on its face, I'm just not finding any in-depth reportage of that achievement - perhaps because it occurred in the 1990s). Some of the sources linked above have almost nothing to do with Kindgen (especially the one from zeit.de), and are woefully short of in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". On top of that he definelty also has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Das osmnezz What would you say are the WP:THREE best significant sources that goes towards GNG that have been added since the start of the AfD? Alvaldi (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Sources are database entries, trivial mentions or interviews (that for obvious reasons are not independent of the subject). Alvaldi (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: While there are policy driven rationales for keeping the article, there are also policy driven rationales for deletion. Ultimately what it will come down to, and what consensus needs to be reached on, is whether or not the subject meets WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Some things to take into account include both the amount and range of coverage the subject receives by WP:RS. The quality of sources is also important, with only reliable secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV eligible to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Demonstrating that the subject either does or does not satisfy WP:GNG will also be of tantamount importance as the discussion turns towards consensus. Essentially, demonstration of notability will support keeping the article, whereas failing to demonstrate notability should result in deletion. Discussion needs to focus on whether or not the subject satisfies notability and WP:SIGCOV criteria, as sufficient SIGCOV would effectively demonstrate notability - which, if the case, would not warrant deletion insert the relevant policies. On the other hand, if it is decided that existing subject coverage is WP:ROUTINE and fails SIGCOV, there would certainly be a strong case for deletion. Therefore, assessing subject notability and coming to an agreement on the quality of sources will be of utmost importance in arriving at a policy-based consensus in regards to the outcome of this discussion. While I currently see a consensus developing to keep, the deletion arguments also have basis in policy and should be taken into account by the closer. The veracity of the existing sources needs careful scrutiny. Coverage amounting to WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE would fall short of WP:SIGCOV and be grounds for deletion. Keeping would require that SIGCOV is established to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG among other relevant guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with databases/interviews/brief mentions, none of it meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I found this newspaper article about him, which suggests there are many more offline sources about him, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro German 2. Bundesliga in extensive 12+ year career during 1990s. In addition, KatoKungLee has spent a long time doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". The article is already a decent size and meets WP:SPORTSBASIC. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2023 (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.