Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylke Luding

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I cannot pull a rationale out of this. In the end, the question is whether a junior world record is enough for notability; the discussion isn't really about GNG-style coverage, of which there seems to be little (and the final comment in the AfD is not substantial). Perhaps a new AfD, with fewer distractions (SportsOlympic, please tone it down some), can provide the answer here, with input from some of the members of the relevant project. On a side note, Christa Rothenburger is 61?? No wonder I feel old. Drmies (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sylke Luding[edit]

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

Sylke Luding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, only listings in databases. I couldn't verify the junior world records (she had 1 world junior championship record, which isn't the same thing). Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the list of the world junior record progressions, and contrary to what the article claims, Sylke Luding never broke a junior world record[1][2]. Fram (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: see below: according to the source used in the article, she didn't break any world records: but research by User:Migrant shows that the problem was with that source, and not with the claim: Luding did set junior world records. Thanks! Fram (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, do a better informed research next time. Best regards Migrant (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing much. Subject does not pass the basic notability requirement prescribed in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And again a AfD from the same nominator for one of the articles I created; with the same reasoning. I explained in former AfD you won’t find the good sources via Google. You have to look into the newspapers from that era (see for example AfD:Wendy van der Poel and to search into the sources of the country (see for example AfD Dalambayar Delgermaa). It’s a notable speed skater; set (junior) world records; represented Germany at international competitions; finished at the top of the highest division competition... For info about her, you have to look into the old German newspapers for the best sources. I don’t know where I can find them. However, when looking at Dutch newspapers (not findable via Google!); there are already a lot of sources about her at national newspapers. Many enough already to meet GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and can add several more. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop repeating the false claim that she set any junior world records: you made the same claim in another article as well, and it was equally false. You cite some AfDs that ended in keep, but of course there were others that ended with deletion as well, so going by precedent or suggesting that all my speed skating AfDs are wrong won't help. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewa Borkowska (speed skater, born 1973) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grietje Veenstra. Then, your sources;
      • [3] Passing mention
      • [4] Passing mention, and wrong. The world record was not Luding's 40.87 from 1987, but 40.70 by Angela Stahnke in 1985[5]
      • [6] again a passing and wrong mention
      • [7] Passing mention
      • [8] Passing mention
      • [9] Passing and wrong mention
      • [10] Passing mention
      • [11] Passing and wrong mention
      • [12] Passing mention
      • [13] Passing mention
    • Do you have any sources which have more on Sylke Luding than a result or a mention in one sentence? Anything substantial? Fram (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The world record is correct. You are showing a database source! Speed skating news is not reliable with records, you have to be very carefull with that!! (I thought you would be that) They only use their own data to make these lists. Many unofficial times are indicated as world / national records! All the sources I listed are not trivial mentions of the subject. And as per GNG “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. And these are the Dutch newspapers, more in dept articles will be in German newspapers and German sport magazines. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Skating is much more popular in the Netherlands than elsewhere; passing mentions in Dutch regional newspapers (for the most part) don't mean that better sources will exist in other countries. If speed skating news isn't reliable, then please stop using it. You add to every skater article you create a source " "Competition results, statistics and records; SpeedSkatingNews".", but are now complaining that I shouldn't use it for records? That's a bit rich. Fram (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I tend to side with Fram on this. It's like getting a passing mention as a dog musher in the Iditarod here in Alaska. I mean, that's the premier "sport" so if you get passing mentions then it's probably because you aren't known enough. Convince me otherwise. I don't speak Dutch but I do know and speak German. I don't see sigcov in any German newspapers for the subject based on my searches. Passing mentions can be used to support notability when there is sigcov in reliable sources. They can not be used as support for inclusion minus sigcov. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Tsistunagiska: articles about a (one example of her described) previous world record holder is not a passing mention, and how laters people desperately try to break it ;). where can I find the old German newspapers online!!!? Would love to have these sources :) SportsOlympic (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Fram: that’s the reason I don’t use the personal bests of speed skating news. And, learned of Migrant of the sources “Please don't rely on one source alone, be critical of each source, judge them by their specialty and focus and what's not their specialty or focus.” (see my talkpage) SportsOlympic (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • And if an newspaper article is for 50% about the subject; I don’t call it a passing mention... SportsOlympic (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here is the issue I can see with newspapers and information not obtainable online. They may be reliable, they may be independent but they aren't readily verifiable. You can't quote a source as reliable if you can't access it. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the general population. How can the general population verify the sources in an article where there is claimed notability if we can't access the sources? Unlike Twitter, we don't assume just because it is on Wikipedia it is notable. If that was the case we wouldn't need the AfD process. We demand to be able to verify the sources on a notable subject and any subject that claims notability but doesn't have verifiable sources should be treated with skepticism. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is perfectly an example of GNG “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”
      • [14] Dutch National newspaper - One section of the article about her
      • [15] main newspaper of Bonaire - Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record.
      • [16] Dutch national newspaper - Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record. About a skater who thought too much about her performance and so performed not that good herself.
      • [17] Dutch national newspaper - Mention about her injury
      • [18] Dutch national newspaper - mention in article an described who her family members are
      • [19] Years later referred to her performance of setting the world record.
      • [20] mentioned about her mental coach, her talentfull results and her father
      • [21] Dutch national news paper - section about setting world records (1 of the 3 sections of the article)
      • [22] Dutch national news paper - section about setting world records (1 of the 2 sections of the article)
      • [23] Dutch national newspaper - an article describing the world records, including her world record.
      • SportsOlympic (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tsistunagiska and again, can you please give the links of the online German old newspapers you found? SportsOlympic (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOlympic Please indicate where you got the quoted phrase above from. It is not quoted under WP:GNG. No where in our notability guideline does it say that multiple insignificant coverages can be put together to equal a significant coverage. That's ridiculous. Also, if I had found anything noteworthy I would have offered it to save the article from deletion. I will not post links to trivial information tat can be searched for by anyone here. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to look at WP:NOT and pay special attention to the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the first point at basic criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just above that you will see it says "People are presumed notable". This indicates to me that this allows for the creation of articles on that presumption. This presumption does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The AfD process is here to determine such things. If the notability of a subject is rebutted upon scrutiny of the sources, both included in the article and when conducting a WP:BEFORE search, then the article should be deleted from the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To come back of your sentence when I asked you about the newspapers: "I will not post links to trivial information tat can be searched for by anyone here". Well delpher.nl is accessible for everybody, but you wont find the articles via google. At least you didn't see these articles when doing your WP:BEFORE, as it is hard to find on the internet the pre-internet secondary sources. That is the case with most of the old newspaper databases. Via Google you won't the newspaper articles of that era, so you have to know the link. If you have a link, please let me know, but it turns out you didn't look into the old German newspapers. Secondly you state "No where in our notability guideline does it say that multiple insignificant coverages can be put together to equal a significant coverage. That's ridiculous." Well I showed you it, and this person meets it. And yes, of course, there should always be a discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska:, to come back of your sentence "I would encourage you to look at WP:NOT and pay special attention to the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." --> Germany was in that era the best speed skating nation (the women's). Sylke Luding had 3 times a seventh place at a World Cup (see here, here and here, the competition with the best speed skaters worldwide. Of the six riders above here, three were riders from her own nation. So only three riders from other countries could beat her. And (almost) all riders who competed at those World Cup are notable. (These years (1986, 1987 and 1988) the nation had always 3 to 4 riders in the top-6 at the World Championships). So this is not just a speed skater, she was one of the best of the world. The few riders that were better were only from her own country. But stating the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is not the case here. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are yet again the same sources, and what you call "a section about her" is actually in each case one sentence. Fram (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are books that consist of one sentence. And besides of that, please count, is it not true. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SportsOlympic Continuing to regurgitate the same thing over and over again doesn't bring anything new to the table. Nothing has been presented to this AfD to change the status of whether the subject receives significant coverage in multiple reliable and intellectually independent sources. That's not my opinion. That's facts according to the only criteria that is relevant on Wikipedia to measure actual notability, not presumed notability which seems to get people hung up on SNG's and such. A world record can be used as criteria to presume notability but presumed notability can be rebutted when measured against the evidence or lack there of. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 12:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was in almost all main national Dutch newspapers (more than mentioned above), when not even looking at German newspapers. So it’s an important contribution. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does not necessarily equal importance. We have important subjects that do not pass notability requirements and we have relatively insignificant subjects that happen to pass the notability guideline easily. All of those sources gave the subject passing mentions and do not constitute in-depth significant coverage and passing mentions are not stackable according to the guideline. Again, I don't blame you for fighting for something you like and want included. It still must pass the basic notability requirements. This one does not. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, it’s about coverage. And she had a coverage in all major Dutch newspapers regarding to the world records. SportsOlympic (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the German secondary sources of that era are not online. See here. SportsOlympic (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2, postcards with here signature are on sale for 7.49 Euro (see here). You wouldn't expect such a card to exist for a not-notable person, and besides of that not for that price. All the the other cards that are on sale are of notable speed skaters (see here). SportsOlympic (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are confusing notability with importance again. No doubt, this individual was an important figure in her sport and among the local and regional people and time in which she lived. But importance doesn't immediately equate to notability. To add, it isn't about the amount of coverage as much as it is about the depth of coverage in reliable sources and that the sources are readily available for public access to verify the claims of notability. You could have thousands of mentions and passing comments about a person and, according to WP:N, that person is still not notable. The criteria calls for significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Something I have come to realize over my brief but difficult time here at Wikipedia is that having or not having an article on my favorite subjects, favorite people or the topics I find important DOES NOT diminish its import to myself or those who share the same viewpoints. That is a huge weight lifted off me. Nothing will be able to take away what she did or who she was. She just doesn't warrant an article on this encyclopedia based on the current criteria we are instructed to follow. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UTC)
  • First, the sources I showed are not passing comments. Second, it are just comments, indicating her importance and showing it’s highly likely there have been a lot of coverage of her in German media. But as I showed, the German media of that time is not online. Third, as you’re saying “She just doesn't warrant an article on this encyclopedia based on the current criteria we are instructed to follow.” —> that’s your opinion, not yet a conclusion out of this discussion. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Going to struggle to reach a consensus with the same couple of people doing all the talking. Can this be advertised somewhere so that interested parties can throw in their $0.02?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the reasons for not participating that often at international championships was probably because of her stiff competition in her own skating club from: Karin Kania (olympic champion), Andrea Ehrig (olympic champion), Christa Rothenburger (olympic champion), Skadi Walter (olympic top-5), Carola Bürger, Andrea Schulze and Heike Pöhland, and from other real good East German speed skaters at the time of her career, although she got in the mix sometimes and for that I really believe she is a notable speed skater. Best regards Migrant (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is notable for not even being the best at her own club? That's strange reasoning. Whether she competed in a very strong club (as here), or in some village club where she had no competition, has no bearing on her notability at all. In fact, in general it is easier and thus less remarkable to become a good sporter if you have strong training mates, than if you have to do it all by yourself. Fram (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being made is that Germany was the best country in the world; and she was one of the best speed skaters worldwide. And of course she will have had coverage in the German media, speed skating was in that era a very popular sport. But we can’t prove that because the news sources are not on internet (as I proved). And she had already a lot of coverage in foreign media. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are enough for notability. Moonraker (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sylke_Luding&oldid=1004506592"