Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ragnar Rump


 * 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. There certainly seems to be some significant coverage, but I am not sure we are going to get a clear consensus as to whether this satisfies GNG this time around Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Ragnar Rump

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD nomination has been contested with addition of couple of new sources (interviews mostly discussing his futsal/beach soccer career), but GNG still isn't met, in my opinion. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone  09:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How does a player who has played on the national team (referenced) fail NFOOTY? ExRat (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - The subject is/was on both the Estonian national futsal team Estonian national beach soccer team. ExRat (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's been shown in multiple past AfD's that beach soccer and futsal are outside of NFOOTY scope.--BlameRuiner (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then why are you using NFOOTY as part of your nomination reasoning? ExRat (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. Futsal/beach soccer is not covered by NFOOTBALL and so GNG is the only measure of notability. If sources can be found to show that Rump meets general biographical notability then please ping me and I'll reconsider my stance. Spiderone  09:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC) After reviewing the sources again, this is borderline. I'm going to sit on the fence with this one.  Spiderone  17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number   5  7  15:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes GNG and since the nomination, more sources has been added. (If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article).
 * ''"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * ''"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.'
 * "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.  --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no sources in the article that satisfy the first of these criteria, e.g. "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Furthermore, several of the sources are basically interviews, which walk on the borderline of not being "Independent of the subject". --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are. The Sõnumitooja article, for one addresses the topic directly and in detail. As does the 15 August 2015 Õhtuleht article, though not as lengthy. ExRat (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete does not meet the GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being Footballpedia and to rid itself of its overly excessive amount of footballcruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Not enough reliable sourcing or significant coverage to pass GNG as it currently stands nor after a quick BEFORE search. On a side note: beach soccer sounds fun. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 17:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not enough reliable sourcing or significant coverage?? Why do you think so? I totally disagree, plenty of links and they are reliable. It must be that you know nothing about Estonian newspapers. Believe me, thouse articles are trustworthy and independent. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - as far as I can discern, there are indeed several significant articles in apparently major Estonian publications, that lead to it just about passing WP:GNG. The fact that beach soccer is out of scope of WP:NFOOTY makes it quite odd that people keep referencing that guideline: yes, this guy seems to have had a minor career in standard association football, but his notability seems to stem from reliable-source coverage related to a slightly different sport. ~ mazca  talk 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment does have reliable sources, but fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 12:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I saw at least two sorces from Ohtuleh with considerable coverage about the player (and it is not a primary source). In addition, he represented his country in the beach soccer team. I understand that it is enough to meet the basics of WP: N. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The coverage strikes me as being pretty trivial and run of the mill, but I also don't speak Estonian so I don't feel like I can definitely declare that as a fact. Can someone who is proposing to keep the article please make the case for why this coverage is significant? The debate above doesn't seem to have focused on whether this coverage is 'significant' which appears to be the most important factor in deciding whether to keep or delete this. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are the same as Apples at the moment Spiderone  16:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It has already been pointed out several times in this discussion that there are several in-depth articles from reliable, independent sources about the subject: a rather lengthy feature at Sõnumitooja, another, shorter one at  Õhtuleht (one of the largest daily newspapers in Estonia), an hour-long interview with Kolmas poolaeg, which is the weekly sports show for Õhtuleht. There are smaller articles (referenced) from Õhtuleht and Postimees (another major newspaper in Estonia). If that doesn't seem to meet your standard of "significant coverage", that is fine and understandable. But, some of this discussion seems to me to hinge on a bias against foreign language sources and reads to me like people who can't read or speak the language, so simply vote to delete on that basis. ExRat (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is borderline. The first one, the Sõnumitooja one, is the only really, really good reference. The rest are either too short or basically just consist of an interview, which, as BlameRuiner said, is generally best avoided as a basis for notability. In any case, I can't fully support deletion but not fully endorsing keep either. Spiderone  17:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply to ExRat: To be clear I haven't actually voted delete. I have yet to cast a vote. My point was that the discussion hasn't actually focused much on whether these sources are actually significant and not just run-of-the-mill. I can see one source is lengthy, but they could be discussing trivial matters with no encyclopedic significance for all we know. The reality is that the article currently has absolutely no information which demonstrates significance of any kind. Yes, there are 2-3 reliable sources which cover the subject. The crucial question is whether those sources can turn the article into something actually semi-decent? What information is contained in those sources which would substantially improve the article and demonstrate notability? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I did a Google Translate of the two best sources and that's all I have to go off. There's one source I'd say counts as being significant...just. But multiple significant sources are required for meeting the GNG. The coverage seems run of the mill, and I would want more (such as THREE) significant sources to say it meets the GNG. Multiple trivial sources do not establish notability. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2021 (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.