Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudolf Andreassen


 * 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. Consensus is that sourcing does not exist at the level to support a standalone article. If anyone wants this in draft space to see if the national welterweight championship can be sourced, happy to provide it. Star  Mississippi  01:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Rudolf Andreassen

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

This article is currently unsourced, which is not at all acceptable. My search for sources came up with some database sources, but no examples of significant coverage. I was not able to find any mention of any other boxing besides in the Olympics, and his Olympics role is clearly not notable. My search did turn up a few mentions of someone name Rudolf Andreassen with an added surname who was a totally different person. The newspaper.com search turned up sources for this name in the last decade and in the 1880s, so nothing even close to the fright time frame. There is no indication of notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts,  and Norway.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment According the Norwegian wiki article, he is a two-time national champion in the welterweight category. If that is true, and can be sourced, then he'd pass WP:NBOX, leading to a keep.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I have sourced the article. As I said before, a simple national champion in boxing is maybe not enough, but a winner of a kongepokal should be notable. --- Løken (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Løken (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
 * Who is this editor that have problems with me?? --- Løken (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added a source from the BNA - if British newspapers had results for him, Norwegian newspapers certainly will. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the relevant section of the BNA source? The title suggests that it might be a list article, rather than significant coverage of him. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It would help to have a clearer sense of the BNA piece, including whether or not it constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article profiles the members of a touring Norwegian team to the UK, saying of Andreassen - "Rudolf Andreassen (light-weight) of Narvik is 25 years and is Light, Welter and Middleweight Champion of North Norway, though his weight is only light-weight". Jevansen (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michig.  ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jevansen. Fails GNG, as no significant coverage has been founded. BilledMammal (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The BNA source is obviously not SIGCOV, and with nothing else having been found there really isn't anything to support including the subject as a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Without additional sourcing, which may well exist in Norwegian sources, I have to lean towards deletion. Losing in the round of 16 at the Olympics is no longer enough for WP notability.  Winning a kongepokal in a sport that Norway is not strong in is not sufficient to convince me of WP notability.  If he won it in cross country skiing or ski jumping, I would likely view it differently. Papaursa (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2022 (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.