Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detlef Dahn


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Detlef Dahn

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Did not win a medal and was eliminated in round two, so fails NSPORT BrigadierG (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bronze medallist at the 1965 European Amateur Boxing Championships. StAnselm (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing,  and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. He was also a two-time national champ and the DE.wiki article has this coverage too, suggesting there's probably more.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the significant coverage in Märkische Oderzeitung to the article, in accordance with WP:SPORTCRIT #5. StAnselm (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. National champion in boxing and bronze medalist at European champs. Clearly notable. - Darwinek (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, these keep votes are in direct contravention of the new WP:NSPORTS, which explicitly disavows simple participation-based claims of notability. If there isn't significant prose coverage, we can't assume notability, period. Even if we were accepting such a thing, bronze medal in an amateur competition is hardly evidence that he is "clearly notable". I hope the closing admin regards these keep votes with the minimal weight they deserve. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are achievement based (i.e. winning something) rather than participation based. That's a crucial distinction. StAnselm (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, the article clearly passes WP:NBOXING. StAnselm (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And NBOXING clearly states that meeting those criteria means "significant coverage is likely to exist", not that the person is presumed notable. We literally just had an RfC about this. NSPORTS criteria no longer provide presumed notability, only that they spell out situations where editors feel that coverage is likely to exist. In this case, we have one regional article. That wouldn't be enough SIGCOV for a GNG pass for anyone else, and sportspeople no longer get a different standard. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And there is coverage that we can't put lay our hands on. The German wikipedia article lists Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970 and "Sport-Almanach", Sport-Verlag Berlin (Ost), 1966 bis 1970. With what we already have in the article, we can be satisfied that these offline German references are going to be enough for a GNG pass. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Without having reviewed them yourself, how can you assume that they are significant coverage? For all we know, they're simple stats tables or lists of participants. In fact, "Fachzeitschrift "Boxsport" 1962 bis 1970" translates to "Boxsport magazine 1962 to 1970," which is useless as a source as it is just a range of years for a particular magazine. The same goes for the almanac - it's just a range of years, not actually a citation to a specific source or even a specific issue. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it could be a range of issues, but that might simply means he's in every issue. One of them are these ones, but later years. Anyway, do we assume good faith for editors on other language wikis as well? StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good faith or not, we cannot possibly be expected to make the assumption that the subject appears in every single issue in that range, nor that each appearance necessarily constitutes significant coverage. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify until significant coverage can actually be found. Ping me if someone confirms the de.wiki sources. –dlthewave ☎ 12:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete A singular newspaper article is not enough significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete . We can't just assume inscrutable offline sources contain SIGCOV, and the sources we can see do not build up to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * EDIT: recommend draftifying instead. Reevaluating the sources gives me some pause, as there is a detailed profile of him in there, and with the addition of (largely routine) recaps of some of his fights there's rather more potential here for further SIGCOV offline. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage clearly exists to GNG is met. There is no requirement hat sources be easily accessible, only that they exist. Smartyllama (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? What sources? Can you name one? How do you know it has significant coverage? Please be specific - a range of years in a magazine is not a source. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep photo appeared on Page 1 of the Berliner Zeitung on 29 May 1965 during the European Championships. There's a three paragraph account of the semi-final fight on page 7. This isn't sufficient SIGCOV by itself, but its existence strongly suggests to me that there is other coverage available in the specialized press. The fight was also covered on page 1 and page 8 of Neues Deutschland the same day. --Jahaza (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a particularly useful source (and a couple of passing references) in Armeerundschau and added them to the article.--Jahaza (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By "three paragraph" do you mean actual paragraphs, or just double-spaced sentences? JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant paragraphs because that's how they were typeset. I didn't count the sentences. Feel free to take a look yourself (or even search for some more sources to improve the encyclopedia!) But in the meantime, WP:AGF.--Jahaza (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We regularly get editors claiming double-spaced sentences are "paragraphs", it's not unreasonable or ABF to clarify. The source looks like a standard match recap... JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "The source looks like a standard match recap..." Not surprising since that's what I said it was. Jahaza (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are clearly sources that are SIGCOV. You can maybe argue that there aren't enough of them, but there are several. Jahaza (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not very convinced that the sources other than the first are significant enough, but very well, I'll abstain from this one. Avilich (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Maybe more detailed source analysis will resolve this Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.