Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedrich Prehn

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. ✗plicit 03:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Prehn

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NATH as a three-time national champion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A national champion doesn't have to pass WP:NOLYMPICS, but does still need to pass WP:GNG. I get some hits from the Hamburger Abendblatt for someone born in the 1930s (probably that son mentioned on olympedia?), but nothing on this guy. I wouldn't expect either of the databases I checked to have 90-year-old German news articles, though. Can anyone turn up an obituary in a Hamburg paper? -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree w/the above comment. And this has been an issue in a number of nominations by nom. Worth noting - a nomination (such as this one) based solely on an assertion that an article does not meet a non-gng criteria never reflects sufficient wp:before consideration. GNG is always enough. --2603:7000:2143:8500:30CD:F863:CA5C:68FC (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article at present doesn't pass GNG, though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence provided or identifiable that they meet WP:GNG. If such evidence can be provided, I will revise my !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We keep articles based on sources. No one has presented any additional sources, and the one source is not enough to justify an article on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And my searches failed to turn up SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. No RS here, chopper. RS, No. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple national champion. I've added reliable German-language references. Deb (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Deb: From what I can see in snippet view on Google Books, it doesn't appear that either of these German language sources provide significant coverage. All I am seeing is a basic directory listing with minimal biographical detail, and race results. If there is additional information I have missed, please can you provide (translated) quotes from these sources to show they meet the definition of significant coverage? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three times national champion is a more than adequate claim of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_&_field_and_long-distance_running #5 The fact that it was a long time ago shouldn't make any difference. Deb (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be sufficient if you were disputing a speedy or proposed deletion, but at AFD any NSPORTS-based presumption of notability must be validated by demonstrating that significant coverage exists and GNG is met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Since the AfD opened, two new book sources have been added. I can't open. Can anyone verify whether these books include SIGCOV of Prehn, as opposed to passing references or inclusion in charts? Cbl62 (talk) 13:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comment above, from the available snippet view, the first one possibly does if there is more to it than can be seen, but the second is purely results listings. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've pieced together the snippets, and it simply lists date and place of birth and death, Olympic appearance, best finishes in the national championships (with times), personal bests and the same for his sons. I would say there is not enough to call it significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree the coverage is trivial and therefore does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likewise, I concur that the coverage is trivial, and that it is an unlikely search term. I agree with Wjemather that Deb is missing the point: an assertion of notability is enough to insulate an article from CSD or PROD, but not remotely sufficient for AfD. The only relevant notability guideline is the GNG. This article fails that. Ravenswing 21:42, 28 January 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.