Magnus Wolff Eikrem – allow recreation. I am closing this two days short of the normal seven day period because there is clear and objective evidence of newfound notability (now that the subject has played matches at the top professional level), evidence which I don't see being particularly controversial. The protection in place is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, and if a seven-day rule is preventing improvement of the encyclopedia, there is
an explicit basis for ignoring it. –
Sjakkalle(Check!) 14:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Allow recreation. I ran
this and
this (which is from what our article says is the
country's largest paper) through Google Translate and they seem to constitute significant coverage (per
WP:GNG) and to show that Eikrem meets the technical requirements of
WP:ATHLETE (as of the last few weeks).
Chick Bowen 05:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Allow re-creation Per the above, it's evident that Eikrem now meets
WP:ATHLETE and arguably even
WP:GNG, if only barely. The title should be
unsalted so anyone interested can write an article on him using independent, reliable sources, like those Chick Bowen identified above. The new article would, of course, be subject to examination at AfD, like any other article.
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk) 21:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
A few other Norwegian sources that seem to amount to significant coverage:
this, from Verdens Gang, a major Norwegian newspaper;
this, from the Harstad Tidende, a regional newspaper; and
this, from Vesterålen Online, which
claims to be "one of North Norway's largest online newspapers."
A Stop at Willoughby (
talk) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the
deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.