Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tore Kallstad


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Tore Kallstad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed PROD: "my lack of norwegian stops me from being able to analyse many of the sources, but there are encouraging sources here - https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Tore%20Kallstad%22&mediatype=aviser" Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and - respectfully - I beg to differ on the sources archived at nb.no, which look to fall short of the sustained, non-trivial coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - the only two that look somewhat significant are and ; I'm not sure if that's enough  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete not enough significant coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per GS. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - slightly unconvinced but I think the sources found by Spiderone might just scrape this through GNG. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:39, 11 March 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.