Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ole Tøpholm


 * 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. Pass WP:GNG, The content of this article is based on its Danish Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) - Nahal (T) 11:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ole Tøpholm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication that the subject passes WP:NBIO. Article about a fan of Eurovision by a fan of Eurovision... no indications of awards, in-depth coverage of their life&career, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: Hardly written by a fan, this individual is not just a fan, but the TV commentator for Danish viewers at the Eurovision Song Contest, from both this and The Danish wiki seems to sum up his life in as much detail. Just because it doesn’t meet your criteria, shouldn’t be reason to delete it. Mrluke485 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2019 (GMT)
 * NBIO is hardly 'my criteria'. Please explain which part of NBIO makes being a TV commentator sufficient for passing our policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * :Well explain to me why my articles are under threat, when other articles that clearly do not meet the so called NBIO seem to slip through the net, you tried removing two articles of mine which met the GNG criteria, that should be enough to pass. Simply because you don't like them or because the article is only backed up by less than five or six references, or you see no reason for them to be here, doesn't mean other will think the same. Mrluke485 (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2019 (GMT)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should answer your question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * My argument I am trying to make is that a television commentator is the voice of the programme for a successful television show like the Eurovision Song Contest, they are there to direct, inform and entertain the viewers at home. I’am not saying that every TV Commentator needs a wiki entry, but if they’ve been presenting it for nearly 10 years, just as our page in question has done, they should be entitled to an entry. Given the fact you have attempted to remove entries I created on high profile associates on the Contest, you seem to think that the Eurovision Song Contest is insignificant on Wikipedia and those associations with the contest, whether they are presenters of the show or have been long standing television commentators are irrelevant and don’t deserve and entry. Mrluke485 (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2019 (GMT)
 * ESC is significant, but Notability is not inherited. Not everyone associated with this event is automatically encyclopedic. They need to meet our other requirements, as outlined in WP:NBIO. Did this person win any awards? Has anyone unrelated to them written their biography? Or discussed their significance? Etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, so in order to stay on Wikipedia, they need to win awards. It's a harmless article at the end of the day, what are you so afraid of. Not every article that gets entered is perfect at the end of the day, I tried finding more references to back up the article, but you don't think that's enough. I mentioned Presenters are the face of Eurovision and Commentators, long standing ones especially are the voice of the Contest. If the commentator is a one off then fair enough, they don't need a page, but if they have done it for more a decade, that is what they are best remembered for. Look at the end of the day I am trying to defend the article and it's not fair that my work has to be the victim of deletion. Mrluke485 (talk) 10;40, 15 November 2019 (GMT)
 * Yes, winning awards helps. And WP:ITSHARMLESS. You really need to check that list for what arguments not to use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, I am trying my hardest to defend the article, whilst trying to find more reliable sources to back the article up, I am still on journey regarding what is notable and not. I understand that you have a duty here and I accept and respect your different of opinion whilst disagreeing with your decision to removing the article, but you also have to understand that I am trying my hardest to defend the article from being deleted, I have just as much right to defend the article as you have to wanting to remove it. Mrluke485 (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2019 (GMT)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I am not finding any RS in the English language, but it's likely that sources, if they exist, are in Danish. I do question whether WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator because it's pretty clear from the few Danish sources I found about his firing/lay off that he was a journalist and not a fan doing commentary for Danish radio and television. The article said he had been a journalist for 19 years. See I don't think any serious search for sources could have done by the nominator based on this gross mischaracterization.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Toplholm appears to be a pass for WP:BASIC based on the following references: 1 2 3 4. Notable Danish journalist and television commentator. Agree that the comment in the nom saying that this article is "about a fan" raises questions about whether, and to what extent WP:BEFORE was done but everyone slips up occasionally and checking such things is what AFD is for. FOARP (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GNG sources are third party and reliable. Has done notable work within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2019 (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.