Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Säfström

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 Keep. In three weeks of discussion we only have one argument for deletion that goes beyond simply stating that he isn't notable, while the arguments for keeping are more convincing. Michig (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Säfström

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable athlete + not referenced Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for solid enough independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, another top-level professional Swedish bandy player, it seems, with reliable sources found via Google or the Swedish wiki article, such as this ("Erik the best in the World Cup..."), or this (about his team captaincy), or this (about his contract negotiations], etc. It would probably help if we had a WP:NBANDY policy but failing that, we have a professional athlete playing at the highest level, who's been the subject of enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Now, it remains a unreferenced BLP and could have been -- and still may be -- PRODed on that basis. But Afd is a forum to discuss notability, regardless of the current state of the article -- and he's notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSPORT states that someone is presumed notable if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." This is clearly the Olympics for Olympic-sports and I think the world championships for major non-Olympic sports. The popularity of Bandy, such as being listed as the 2nd most popular winter sport, would make anyone competing in their world championships notable. This individual did, so keep. RonSigPi (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets WP:NSPORT with his inclusion in the Bandy World Championships. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources presented herein demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete – I don't see how bandy is the second most popular winter sport (per RonSigPi), in fact, I am certain that fact is incorrect. To bad there isn't a WP:NBANDY. I still don't feel that he has enough coverage to gain notability, the article would unlikely ever make it past stub class and the only thing holding onto him being on Wiki is his participation in the world cup, which isn't that convincing to me. NikolaiHo 03:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not saying it is 2nd most popular, the Bandy article says so and provides two references. I have no idea if its 2nd, 5th, or 10th most popular. My point was that it clearly is popular, even if not in English speaking nations. RonSigPi (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.