Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aage Høy-Petersen

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Aage Høy-Petersen}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Aage Høy-Petersen}})

No indication of notability; no significant coverage was provided or able to be identified. An additional source was available on the Danish Wikipedia, but it is neither reliable nor does it include significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete non-medalists do not meet our inclusion criteria, and there is no indication of sourcing that meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• {{ping|Johnpacklambert}} Note that while he didn't medal in the 1924 Olympics, he did medal in 1928 - although of course that isn't sufficient to keep in the absence of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete although he did get a medal in 1928, we need actual sources passing GNG to justify keeping articles, and we do not have that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. While still cleaning up the last-place finishers and non-finishers of the Olympics, who can be said not to have achieved anything, it's pretty extreme to suddenly start sweeping over the Olympic medalists in the same go. This counteracts the centralized discussion, because the presumption of notability is exceedingly stronger. Granted, GNG is ultimately the core policy but the above challenge that GNG can't be met here is unconvincing. PS. You don't need to ping me to reiterate that you failed to find sources. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• So in fact you admit that we have no sources that fit our inclusion criteria at all, but still want to keep it without sources. What sources have you found that meet GNG? This article has existed on Wikipedia for over 14 years. That after that time we should keep an article with no GNG passing sources just because they might show up in the future seems a truly odd argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• I do admit I haven't checked, because I don't have access to a Danish newspaper archive, nor the time to do every WP:BEFORE task that others have not done. Geschichte (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• We cannot keep an article just because we think there might be sources, Verifiability means we must have the sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
• Which parts of the article cannot be verified? Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports database. Articles are to be based on signigicant coverage, not bare entries in tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. 14 years is more than enough time for someone to have found GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Unclear whether Danish sources have been searched for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so up to 1922. After that, access is apparently restricted to academic researchers located in Denmark: see [https://dighumlab.org/collections/ here], [https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/ here] and [https://wayf.wayf.dk/ds/?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fmediestream-saml.statsbiblioteket.dk&return=https%3A%2F%2Fwayf.wayf.dk%2Fsaml2%2Fidp%2FSSOService2.php%3FSAMLRequest%3DlVLfT8IwEP5Xlr6PjcoGNkCCECMJKnHogy%252BmWw9p2NrZu6H%252B93ZDI76Q%252BNImd%252Ff9uC83RlmVtZg1tDMP8NYAUvBRlQZF15iwxhlhJWoURlaAggqRzW5XgvdiUTtLtrAlO4GcR0hEcKStYcFyMWEvPB%252BOhkptkyQZJLKQlykM0yKJEy5TxSHn%252FUF6MdhepjELnsChR06YJ%252FJwxAaWBkka8qWY8zDmYX%252B0iQciiUU%252FeWbBwm%252BjjaQOtSOqUUTRu%252Fzc9rpH7aPWMY%252B0qqMsu8%252FAHXQBvFfvahbMfqzOrcGmAvfdfnxY%252FZJVoLQXcSCrsOXqeT%252BEuc5LbQn2QK1IZVVTQsva6UV4%252FHkoC%252ByqRRfLARwL1t%252BRXmmjtHk9n2Z%252BHEJxs9msw%252FV9tmHTcUstunTc9D82x9Epcny8izuvuVysbamLz%252BDaukrSeUttRatw240KctKgBkM%252BzrK073PvgGDCyDXAoulR8u%252F1Tb8A%26RelayState%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fmediestream-saml.statsbiblioteket.dk%252Fmodule.php%252Fsbcasserver%252Fcas.php%252Flogin%253Fservice%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww2.statsbiblioteket.dk%25252Fmediestream%25252Flogin.jsp%26SigAlg%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.w3.org%252F2000%252F09%252Fxmldsig%2523rsa-sha1%26Signature%3Dp6eHXTkrRFkvV%252BRdIv0KFoo28yXkeE4rr%252FsrflczyE4axliWLoZL%252Bx%252BzB%252F17OpsdLdNWamxOwDVViHi8t3CoKBa2p96b5DknRXTH3LLWHufOdc4UX8UjsRJR92W%252FYuhUvCoYXGV8H%252FOUdAWqZlr%252BK3WVKl6GxN0MZcw5spSK6GAKNuLGGWMab2bWnAs3KmagLDo7HNawVGBQU9eqr8hWMFbZpjMlqv%252F2tzjaEsPro81giqKc7V4cs6qa0OlnuWN1UqEd6mNQ3OPymeQiJ4aBGAjOtzMWuL6GatgsrrxbVKhJLKZCUM61U4dagspZk7TfP00WLeV2tQfxjtsIq8Kt0g%253D%253D&returnIDParam=idpentityid here]. So accessing coverage for 1924 and 1928 would not be straightforward. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
• :@Ingratis What is the coverage of pre-1922 Olympic medallists in Danish newspapers? JoelleJay (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I don't know. Ingratis (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I think if the presumption of notability rests on the presumption that Danish newspapers gave SIGCOV to Danish Olympic sailors, the latter ought to be demonstrated first. Otherwise we'd be stuck holding on to a microstub for another 2 to 6 years until sources are available that may not even have sufficient coverage for GNG anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::It's equally a presumption that there is no information, whatever earlier newspapers may or may not contain. There is NO time limit and Wikipedia is NOT pressed for space - I see no problem in waiting, especially since this is not just an Olympic competitor but an Olympic medallist, and not in a team event either. Ingratis (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre was a team event - he was one of three crewmembers, in addition to the helmsman. And while there is WP:NODEADLINE, there is also no deadline for us to have a deadline - would you be willing to compromise on a soft-deletion (turn into a redirect), and if sources are found in six years time when 1928 is publicly available the article can be easily restored? BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::My mistake re team! Because this is a medal winner, whether in a very small team or on his own, as I wrote below I would rather keep until it's possible to search more meaningfully for sources, which are likely, if they exist, to be in contemporary Danish newspapers, although not excluding the possibility of others. Until such a search can be made the presumption of notability remains, and as Geschichte has already said, it's a very strong presumption for a medal winner. I agree that even in 2028, should we reach it, there is no fixed deadline for such a search. Redirecting rather than deletion is surely in any case the default for Olympic stubs. Ingratis (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::There has never been a proper determination of whether Olympic medallists in particular sports in particular eras receive the requisite coverage in their home countries to meet GNG. It has always been presumed based on the amount of coverage they get now. Because this presumption has not been validated, and because NSPORT says if an SNG but not GNG is met {{tq|For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics}}, the onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate why there is {{tq|very strong reason to believe}} SIGCOV exists in these Danish newspapers. It is not enough to assert WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. JoelleJay (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:Redirect, to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre, if this article is not kept - WP:ATD. But given the time restriction on Danish sources above, I think it should be kept until they have become available. I have to say, echoing Geschichte, that I'm surprised (and not in a good way) to see an article on an Olympic medallist nominated for deletion. Clearly there was no real point whatsoever to the interminable NOLY RfC. Ingratis (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, per winning a medal at the Olympics, meets NOLY. And I'm sure he would probably meet GNG as well if we were able to access Danish newspapers from the period he competed in. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• You cannot presume GNG based on sources you cannot describe and just pull out of thin air. GNG is met by finding actual sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::: If the sources that likely have coverage of him will not be available for a few years, then I believe GNG can be presumed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: No, that is backwards. If the sources will not be available for a few years, we should wait a few years to create the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep despite what is written above it appears the subject does meet the criteria at WP:NOLY. NemesisAT (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
• All sports SNGs still require the subject to meet GNG, and no one has presented even one source that would show meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.