Select Page

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Brammen

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. Legoktm (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brammen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created for 45 minutes of pro-level play in 2016. Best I could find is this (paywalled) interview, rest are match reports in the local press. Fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question @Doctor Duh: And you don't think the German wiki article de:Jonas Brammen passes GNG either? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy - heh, that's certainly something I'll remember to check next time, looks like he received more attention in the very early stages of his career. But I think the argument for deletion still doesn't fall apart from this; I see only the first two cites on the de.wiki article (1, 2) as plausibly contributing to a claim to notability, but the first one is just a short interview and they're both filed under "Lokalsport", which I don't think I need to translate. We'll see how this plays out with additional community input, but I promise to be more inquisitive in the future... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. I found [1], [2], [3], [4], among many many more German sources from nw.de, rp-online.de, westfalen-blatt.de, owl-journal.de, sport1.de, radioguetersloh.de, wn.de, welt.de. kicker.de etc. Player with ongoing career and experience in the fully professional German second and third tiers. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above references provided, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were interviews, match reports and brief mentions that don't go to passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 28 November 2022 (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.