Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Nielsen (footballer)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Arthur Nielsen (footballer)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Arthur Nielsen (footballer)}})

Violates the general criteria of WP:NOTDATABASE due to being an article that replicates a database entry. In addition, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT.

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete the article lacks even one source that would add towards the passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep In my opinion this can pass GNG, sources should be out there for an international Danish player. Especially one who has played over 250 domestic top flight apps. Govvy (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG and SPORTSCRIT. Needs reliable sourced coverage. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, saying sources should exist is not the same as having sources that do exist. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. The "keep" vote above merely speculates that "sources should be out there", but no actual WP:SIGCOV has been presented to support a policy-based argument to keep. Cbl62 (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.