Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fróði Fríðason Jensen


 * 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 delete. There has been a substantial discussion following the re-opening of this discussion (per Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_6) and there is a clear consensus favouring deletion, even after weighing User:Snaevar's arguments.  A  Train talk 19:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Fróði Fríðason Jensen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per BLP nomination: Subject is not notable; known only to local Faroese area. Awards are not International, Olympic or World Class level; only semi-local awayds. References are minimal / non-existent in English. Maineartists (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As stated above, no notability (local athlete, no major realisation), no reliable source, and almost nothing on him.Socerb102 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had originally closed this as delete, but backing out my close per Deletion review/Log/2017 August 6 to give people time to consider 's argument
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, based on Google-found resources. Table tennis isn't covered by WP:NATHLETE, so there are no bright line criteria for that sport, but I agree with the nominator that the awards listed in the article are for competitions that would likely not be included in the criteria if WP:NATHLETE did cover table tennis. One comment, on the nomination, however: whether sources are available in English isn't germane to an assessment of either verifiability or notability. Largoplazo (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The Faroe Islands' population is under 50,000. The claim to notability is effectively being one of the best table tennis players in a town. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Three comments. Firstly, the english wikipedia does allow non-English sources, see NONENG. Secondly, saying that the Faroe Islands is an local area is incorrect as they do have their own parliament which handles all domestic affairs, and in fact calling them an local area of Denmark would be like calling Scotland, England or Wales an local area, e.g. it is a country, not an area. Not only that, but it is also considered offensive to the faroese people (see the link for proof of that). Thirdly, even though Google Translate is good at translating in English, the same does not apply to every other language.--Snaevar (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable athlete to warrant an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To specifically address 's arguments: 1) Of course the english wikipedia allows non-English sources. This is not the argument. The argument is if the subject of notability for inclusion is notable enough to be covered outside of the original language that is assigned to the subject's specific category: i.e. sports. It has nothing to do with utilizing sources in other languages, that is a common practice at WP. The question arises when there are absolutely no other sources to be found in any other language than the native language for the subject themselves that questions the notability and their coverage. If the subject is a "champion" at table tennis, then coverage would be not exclusive to the native language of the subject but covered in other languages and media. This is not the case. 2) The term "local" is being taken out of context (due to, I believe, translation) and that it has nothing to do with locality to surrounding countries of origin; but "local" as in exclusivity of the subject to that nation / country alone. To say the subject is a "champion of the Faroe Islands" is not an insult but simply refers to local notability. 3) Google Translate is not the factor in this case. The article is poor in its writing and the content is sparse at best. Regardless of the subject's notability, the article itself should be called into question as WP quality and standards. I vote again: delete. Maineartists (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On a point of order, the language of the source is completely irrelevant, and in any case there are sources in both Icelandic and Faroese in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete. I find the reasoning advanced by User:Snaevar to be pretty unconvincing.  Nobody is arguing that the Faroese are not a nation here.  But the UK analogy is simply not valid; Northern Ireland has a population of almost two million, or about thirty-six times that of the Faroes.  The two situations are simply not comparable.  The small city I grew up in has a population about the same, and nobody would argue that the best table tennis player in the City of Redcliffe is automatically notable because of that.  The sources also seem to be rather primary in nature; while I would remain open to being convinced by the presentation of substantial secondary sources about this individual (in any language), what we have here are a bunch of very short articles that resemble match reports in very specialised publications.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment Responding to Snaevar's characterization of my Delete !vote above as involving "speculation", if that means that I was speculating as to what guidelines WP:NATHLETE would provide for table tennis if it provided guidelines for table tennis, then that's kind of misguided. I could have limited my second sentence to "Table tennis isn't covered by WP:NATHLETE, so there are no bright line criteria for that sport." In continuing it by "speculating", I was trying to give the article the benefit of the doubt, considering whether it might pass WP:NATHLETE in spirit if not to the letter.
 * Now I'm looking at WP:NTENNIS, WP:NBADMINTON, and Table tennis, and it still isn't clear to me that the Fynske Mesterskabe, the GP (not sure what that is), and the Arctic Open are in the echelons of the sport that would be included in WP:NTABLETENNIS if there were such a set of guidelines. I could be mistaken. Largoplazo (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Figuring out what the notability criteria would be for table tennis involves a lot of variables, where the argument of it ending up being based on other notability criteria is just one of them.


 * The notability rules are written based on an conseus that has been reached in an discussion between wikipedians, and the same applies to any addition of the notibility rules. Predicting the outcome of such an conseus would require not only looking at one argument, but also knowing what arguments would be made against it, what affect those arguments would have and more importantly whether those arguments would make a stronger point than than the original suggestion.


 * Also, it is very likely that someone would make an different suggestion, or even suggestions, of what the notability criteria for table tennis would be. Without knowing what that suggestion may be, it is impossible to know whether the alternative criteria would result as being the conseus of the discussion or not.


 * If the discussions on notability of sports had repeatedly ended with the conseus that the same notability rules should apply, then we would be looking at one chapter of notability rules, not 34 (26+3+5 = 34) of them. History of these discussions do not go in favor of your argument, but rather quite the contrary.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For me Fróði is notable, since he was the national champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Faroese Masters (FM) is the country championship for the faroese islands, so Fróði was the national champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. GP-knappnigin is a lower level table tennis tournament in the faroese islands. Arctic Open is an tournament with participants from the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the debate about the size of the Faroe Islands versus any other given location is important, I think it misses the point. The fact of the matter is that the Faroe Islands are (as Snaevar rightly points out) a constituent country of Denmark. I live in a city with a population larger than several European states, but would be very concerned if someone were to say "This person was the number-one ranked X in San Marino [for the sake of an example], which is smaller than Brisbane and therefore doesn't amount to notability". There are any number of reasons why most of us won't know more than the odd Faroese celebrity (I think I can name two, but I was always an odd child), but to characterise the notability of such an individual as only being "local" is unfortunate. I'm sure there'd be cries of "systemic bias" if the local notability were confined to part of the developing world, for example. Sourcing is a concern - the primary nature thereof, emphatically not the language - but I doubt there's going to be an awful lot written in any language about a Faroese table tennis player, certainly as compared to a player from one of the countries which win gold medals at the Olympics in the sport. Having spent a lot of my time recently looking at newly-created articles about footballers from unusual places, I know full-well that match reports in languages other than English are often the best we can hope for in terms of coverage, and that's for "the world game". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the debate as being "about the size of the Faroe Islands versus any other given location" is incorrect, as that is only one argument that's been given. In a discussion, disposing of one invalid argument doesn't eliminate the need to make or consider valid ones. You haven't provided any arguments for finding Jensen notable, nor addressed other arguments (like mine) dealing with WP:GNG and WP:BIO/WP:NATHLETE that made no mention of the size of the country he's from. Largoplazo (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My characterisation was that the debate was in part about the size of the Faroe Islands - rather a significant part, I would suggest, but agreed that it's a part, which is why I also addressed other issues in my comment, to which you've kindly responded. I have addressed issues of sourcing, all of which I'm sure you would agree feeds into GNG-related matters even though I didn't specifically use that acronym at the time. I disagree entirely that I've not "provided any arguments for finding Jensen notable", as I've indicated that we may well be dealing (certainly I am, I have no Faroese and severely limited Icelandic searching abilities) with the best evidence we're going to get which, while less than ideal, is at least at, if not marginally above, the sourcing we can expect for players of a more popular sport in other countries. I know, before you say it, that other-stuff-exists isn't a valid argument in and of itself, but this isn't simply a case of "we have an article on Blabla, therefore we should have an article on Jensen", so much as "what standard can we reasonably expect to hit here, particularly given the circumstances?" BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence sums it up: As in your earlier contribution, you have taken issue with several of the arguments that others gave in supporting their Delete !votes, and have mulled over what standards should be used here, but you haven't written anything of the form, "... is clearly coverage that meets WP:GNG and/or other pertinent guidelines." I agree with you that some of the arguments given here against notability are incorrect, and I agree with you that one should give due consideration to how one establishes notability or a lack thereof. However, when I concluded "delete", I gave my reasoning based on what coverage I did or didn't find for this person and based on what level of events this person competed in. You concluded "keep" without explaining what guideline you thought was, after all your analysis, met, and how it was met. At least, as far as I can tell, after rereading. Largoplazo (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your opinion. I disagree with it, as is my right, but I thank you for it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On the matter of the only sources being available being match reports, I'd point out that this is a BLP. We are supposed to have the highest standards for verifiability of information here.  If there aren't good sources that go into detail about this person, regardless of the reason for that, how can we write a neutral, good-quality biographical article about them?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC).
 * I take your point, and agree with it to a certain extent. In an ideal world, there would be at least one source of at least moderate reliability in English, and it's interesting that nothing like that seems to exist for someone from Scandinavia. I'm still taking the pragmatic view I've expressed earlier for the reasons I've indicated, though, but I'm not going to feel too hard-done-by if my view doesn't prevail. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is amusing:  I like the spin of achieving "2nd place" rather than admitting losses!  But in bigger picture it is a bit embarrassing for Wikipedia to have articles like this, essentially a joke article pushing the notability limits. -- do  ncr  am  16:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again false statement, doncram. Fróði achived 1st place in FM and as such was the country´s champion in 2012, 2013 and 2014. As far as your failed joke goes you are really just throwing stones out of an glass house, since there is no notability criteria for table tennis and this article fulfills the basic criteria just fine. Making jokes like that is a known dominance technique, often used when the person who uses it does not have sufficient arguments to back their own statements up.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per doncram. Zhangj1079 (T&#124;C) 18:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This table tennis player does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. All the sources provided appear to be routine coverage of sporting events with no biographical content about the subject in them. Although sport-specific recommended notability criteria for table tennis players have not been established, it appears that he has never even competed in the Olympics, World Championships, World Cup, or European Championships of table tennis, much less medaled at any of those competitions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with Metropolitian90, there could be more of non-routine coverage citations, so here has one more has been added. However, the basic criteria of NATHLETE only mentions the Olympics as an example and the list of world championships, world cup and european championship is not mentioned there.--Snaevar (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete- agree with Metropolitan90. All the "coverage" is the usual routine sports coverage, and there is no biographical content available. Though I'd go further and say I'd be very cautious in deferring to a sports notability guideline, if one existed for this sport, since they are invariably indiscriminate "everything is notable" bilge. Reyk  YO!  10:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The language of the sources is irrelevant to whether the person clears WP:GNG or not, and the size of the Faroe Islands is not relevant to notability either. What is determinative is that (a) the level of competition that he participated in is not high enough to confer an automatic inclusion pass just because he was there, and (b) the sources aren't substantively enough about him to meet the demands of GNG. We don't keep articles about every person who can simply be verified as existing; we keep articles about people who have been substantively the subject of media coverage for an accomplishment that satisfies a notability standard. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.