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. There was a suggestion in the last AFD that this article be Redirected to North Korea national football team#Top goalscorers so that is an option that might be considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An Chol-hyok (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. The one source provided is not nearly enough. Redirect to 2010 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Article was already nominated for deletion by the same user less than three months ago, which resulted in a clear consensus to keep. Nothing has changed since then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm suggesting that the previous result was incorrect as the article still fails WP:GNG. Was far from clear. Article should not be kept due to ideological reasons. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You personally may disagree with that consensus, but that does not mean that you are correct. Re-nominating it so soon when there's been zero change in anything – just because you don't like the original outcome – is borderline disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didnt say i didnt like it, I'm saying that it was incorrect based on the sourcing. Are you saying that the one source is the article is sufficient to pass WP:GNG? If so I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on the guidelines if you are assessing the article objectively. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep – Per BeanieFan11. Little time has passed since the last AfD, nothing that justifies a change in consensus. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the first AFD nomination votes/comments. This article was here in the AFD just about three months ago with huge support to keep and should not have been returned within this short period especially by the same user who nominated it then. Piscili (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nothing has changed since last AFD. Really bad faith nomination. GiantSnowman 18:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Where does it say that renominating an article after 3 months is not alloyed? especially when the article continues to fail WP:GNG. That is ample time to improve the article. The guidelines are quite clear. Nobody has made a argument about how the article passes WP:GNG either here or in the previous discussion. Simione001 (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2024 (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.