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. Consensus is abundantly clear in favor of notability. This is not the place to discuss nominator's history, if people want to do that. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Blomberg (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)

According to the SNG, it is likely that sufficient sources exist to meet GNG if a player has played in one or more professional games, however this does not guarantee notability. WP:BEFORE search did not return sufficient coverage beyond basic stats to meet this standard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, played recently enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL and the nominator is far from competent to conduct a source search in Swedish. Actually, the margin of meeting NFOOTBALL is very, very large, with the subject having played at least 228 Allsvenskan games. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you conducted a source search in Swedish? –dlthewave ☎ 20:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see Geschichte presenting himself as an authority on these matters again, particularly since he was found to have been flooding the encyclopaedia for years with these under-referenced sub-stub BLPs of often completely non-notable semi-pro Scandinavian footballers! This suggests to me he possibly is not best placed to diagnose lack of competence in others in such matters. To put it mildly. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your notion is completely unfounded, seeing as if there was a change of consensus, it happened several years after the articles in question were created. When it comes to Swedish, I was referring more to the ability to read the language fluently, knowledge about reliable and useful newspapers and other outlets, and access to said outlets. Geschichte (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - over 200 professional appearances, meets NFOOTBALL by miles. GiantSnowman 21:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added a couple of sentences. I'd say there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, after having taken a brief look in Mediearkivet, the major digital Swedish newspaper archive. /Julle (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Given Blomberg's football career extended into an era when most Allsvenskan players were full-time professionals, WP:NFOOTBALL probably is met here. Julle says there is sustained non-trivial coverage in Mediearkivet (but apparently couldn't be bothered to present any here – while the inaccessible ones added to the article look like decidedly trivial local paper stuff) so I'll AGF that perhaps WP:GNG is covered too. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly per the world football link in the article show he has clearly played huge amount of top flight football, clearly WP:BEFORE has not been done, the nominator should be slapped with a trout. Govvy (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Rather than just asserting (spectacularly circular) notability, can someone actually produce the required GNG sourcing? I'm not necessarily doubting it exists, but come on, you can't complain about a BEFORE not being done if you haven't actually rebutted the nom's claim that GNG sources don't exist! JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes GNG simply on the basis of number of games played, as per User:Govvy and even User:Bring back Daz Sampson. As for TROUTing the nominator, I wonder whether it might be getting past that: User:Dlthewave is now building up quite a record of unsuccessful nominations for deletion without WP:BEFORE of articles requiring knowledge of non-English languages for sourcing, to the extent that his/her nominations are starting to become disruptive. He/she has a far better track record on those with English-language sources - perhaps stick to those in future. Ingratis (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest possible keep - Simply saying "they played X matches" should never be sufficient, by itself, to show that someone is notable. You have to actually show coverage. Similarly, competence is required for creating an article, so demanding that articles can only be nominated for deletion by someone who can speak the languages needed to find sources that the article lacks gets things the wrong way round: those sources should already be in the article. Like Bring back Daz Sampson I can only AGF that the sources added do actually have SIGCOV in them and aren't e.g. just match reports where the player is mentioned in passing, and vote keep on that basis, but it would be great if Julle could explain what it is they actually say. Contra Ingratis, no, this is not a bad nom, though I think it could be called brave, since there is no clear indication of notability here beyond the number of games played (which is not enough by itself). FOARP (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What type of search was performed before creating this article? Why was it created in mainspace (where it's subject to AfD if notability isn't demonstrated) instead of incubated as a draft? This all could have been avoided if sources had been provided in the first place.

It's often implied that the article creator is the only one competent enough to perform a WP:BEFORE search in the appropriate language. If this is the case, then the burden to find sources will have to fall on them. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the old "Articles can be mass-created based solely on a single low-quality database, but you have to do a kind of super-BEFORE on them where you search offline/pay-walled/foreign-language sources before AFD'ing them" dichotomy. No, if the article was created without any real and clear claim to notability, and sources supporting one can't be found by a reasonable search, then AFD is exactly the right place to go. Reviewing the titles of Julle's sources I guess they are likely about Blomberg (I think "Blomma" is a nickname for him) so I'm voting keep, but this is without any judgement on the nomination of this article which seems to have been justified and is not at all invalidated by the finding of sources that are not available to the vast majority of editors. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 5 January 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.