Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pål André Helland


 * 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   no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pål André Helland

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BIO in that he, a footballer, has never played a professional game in his sport. No prejudice for recreation if he plays. Punkmorten (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does appear to meet WP:BIO since this and this are nontrivial sources, and the subject is signed onto the RBK A-team, and played one friendly match against Molde. He has also played on the G18 national team. Although I know that the Nathan Delfouneso precedent was to delete first, and recreate a few weeks later, I feel that is a rather bureaucratic exercise. Although I would like to see Rosenborg relegated, I think this article is OK. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hundreds and hundreds of players leave top-league teams without ever playing, I can think of several off the top of my head. Punkmorten (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per failure of WP:ATHLETE, ask for restoration or recreate it if he actually manages to play in a fully professional league game. --Angelo (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:BIO criteria as established by Sjakkalle. There is no reason to make an exception to that rule just because he happens to miss another guideline. The guidelines are supposed to complement each other. - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it would be meaningless to have a red name in the Rosenborg line-up, that is something i think should apply for all players who is in the first team squad at top level in a national professional league. Hope he plays sunday so we can forget about this:) My Humble Opinion -- Rosenborgman (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a player in the squad doesn't have an article, then don't link his name. "Because otherwise there'd be a redlink" is a pretty feeble reason to keep an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not willing to accept that one can be notable in a sport by membership on a team without actually playing. Its like being notable as an understudy. What level of play is required is a more complicated issue, but one has to appear on the field in a regular season game at whatever level it is.  DGG (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He has played many matches for the RBK2 team in the norwegian second division(third flight) that is also recognized as a professional league.-- Rosenborgman (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence of what you say? This is a really bold statement, especially considering that, as far as I know, only the Norwegian top flight is fully professional, and these two old AfD cases (1, 2) seem to confirm what I say. --Angelo (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely wrong. Not even the second tier is fully professional. Punkmorten (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  I 'mperator 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:BIO with significant news coverage as noted above.  As such any arguments the he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE are not relevant, as WP:BIO trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2009 (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.