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.
Keep: Danish sportsperson of the year should be enough. --- Løken (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it results in them receiving multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV, which it doesn't appear to have. And they were named that by BT, not Denmark. BilledMammal (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning the Danish sportsperson of the year by the oldest newspaper in Denmark would meet WP:ANYBIO. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The award is from the tabloid, not the newspaper that it was spun off from. And even if it is a well-known and significant award, and I am not convinced that it is, then that only makes them likely to be notable. They still need to meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Denmark, I will say it is a "well-known and significant award". World wide maybe not, but in Denmark, yes. [1] --- Løken (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tabloid award; not much different from The Sun giving such an award. And that example you provided is of the countries Badminton organization writing that a Badminton player had won the award; it's not indicative of the award being significant today, let alone in 1945. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the newspapers billed as tabloid in Scandinavia have their flaws, media scholars would not assess them on quite the same level of untrustwhortiness as The Sun or the German Bild. Geschichte (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Lugnuts and if they received this award it's reasonable to conclude that the newspaper would have covered the subject significantly in the year in question, we just don't have the access. Jevansen (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep almost certain they received WP:SIGCOV when selected as sportsperson of the year. NemesisAT (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one has shown any sigcov of this person. If the award was truly a major honor, we would be able to find sigcov of recieving it. Tabloid issued awards are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the attempt to disparage the award rests on a false premise about "tabloid" sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The premise is that awards from a tabloid are unlikely to be well-known and significant. I believe that is a reasonable premise; the most recent award has received very little coverage, and I don't believe any of them constitute WP:SIGCOV, with the possible exception of this article. Given that the award is clearly not significant today, it is unreasonable to assume it was significant in 1945 when there was less coverage of these topics. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 00:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to request for convenience; Lugnuts link is to my subsequent response to Liz, after she agreed to reopen the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I verify that this is true. I closed this discussion as a "Keep" and was asked to revert and relist which I did. I was hoping that more time could make this decision more conclusive. LizRead!Talk! 04:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And given the lack of additional participation, I'd still close it as "Keep". LizRead!Talk! 07:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Can you explain why you believe the award to be "significant and well known", given how little coverage it receives? BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so currently up to 1922. After that, access is restricted, apparently to academic researchers located in Denmark: see here, here and here. So accessing coverage for 1932 and onwards is not straightforward, and until it has been properly examined it's not possible to reach a safe conclusion about the existence of SIGCOV, as with similar articles about Danish Olympians. There is after all WP:NODEADLINE. I must add that I thought Liz's previous Keep closure was correct: I don't agree with this relisting.
If however the decision here were not to keep then the article should be redirected - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you are !voting "keep" for ten years until sources might be convenient to access? And if it turns out there are no sources, I assume you will want to keep for another 14 years, until sources from 1945 are convenient to access? BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I was not clear: I am !voting "keep" because I think the previous AfD closure was correct and should not have been challenged, and because I agree with the other "keep" !votes. In addition, however, I am pointing out that establishing SIGCOV is made difficult here because the principal probable sources, which is to say the contemporary Danish newspapers, are restricted in access for 100 years unless a Denmark-based researcher cares to tackle them. Otherwise NOTPAPER and NODEADLINE. Ingratis (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming by agreeing with the other keep voters you mean you believe the award meets WP:ANYBIO, can you explain why you consider it significant given the evidence I presented above that it is not? And WP:NODEADLINE also applies to creating the article; we don't need to assume there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, we can wait until we can check in 2045 and create an article then, if the sources actually exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you searched carefully enough for there to be "evidence" of anything. Here are three Danish press reports of the 2021 B.T. Guld Prisen: Politiken, DK Nyt and Avisen Danmark, and this is not nearly an exhaustive search. It is thus clearly not correct that the award is insignificant, as you claim. As for Leidersdorff it is also not insignificant that the 1945 award in the last year of the war and the Nazi occupation went to a Danish Jewish sportsman, and that won't have passed unreported. There is enough here to warrant keeping this as a stub with every prospect of expansion in due course as the Danish copyright period unrolls. That makes more sense to me than deleting it now with a hypothetical note in a non-existent diary to look again 2045. As for WP:MUSTBESOURCES it's an essay, not even a guideline, and doesn't apply here in any case as the sources are so highly probable. Ingratis (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read above, I did find a small amount of coverage of the current award, but not enough to make the award "significant or well known", which is a higher bar than "has coverage". And while WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an essay, WP:V is a policy - and you need to make your claim that Leidersdorff is sufficiently notable for an article verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found more coverage than you did (links provided), enough to show that the award is significant and well-known (at least in Denmark) and it is established that Leidersdorff won this significant and well-known award. There is enough here for a stub, with a prospect of expansion in due. And that's it. Ingratis (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what is not established is that the award is "significant and well-known", which is a higher bar than receiving a small amount coverage. And I believe the coverage you found is the same coverage I found. Regardless, WP:ANYBIO doesn't provide a presumption of notability, it merely suggests that they are likely to be notable - WP:GNG still has to be met, which means you need to show these sources you believe exist. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've had your say - you don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion for those who don't agree with you. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 10:08, 25 February 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.