Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark: Difference between revisions

Line 17: Line 17:

=== Others ===

<noinclude>==== Categories ====</noinclude>

==== Categories ====

</noinclude>

<!– To list categories discussed at WP:CFD use

* {{cfdl|category name|log date (optional)|discussion name (optional)|discussion start date|discussion close date|result}}

New items should be placed at the top of any existing list, directly below this hidden notice. –>

<noinclude>==== Deletion reviews ====</noinclude>

==== Deletion reviews ====

</noinclude>

<!– To list pages appealed at WP:DRV use

* {{drvl|page name|date in YYYY Month D format|}}

where date is e.g. 2017 February 7 from [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 7]]

New items should be placed at the top of any existing list, directly below this hidden notice. –>

<noinclude>==== Miscellaneous ====</noinclude>

==== Miscellaneous ====

</noinclude>

<!– To list miscellaneous pages discussed at WP:MFD use

* {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/page name}}

Line 36: Line 42:

New items should be placed at the top of any existing list, directly below this hidden notice. –>

<noinclude>==== Redirects ====</noinclude>

==== Redirects ====

</noinclude>

<!– To list redirects discussed at WP:RFD use

* {{xfdl|rfd|page name|||discussion start date|discussion close date|result}}

New items should be placed at the top of any existing list, directly below this hidden notice. –>

<noinclude>==== Templates ====</noinclude>

==== Templates ====

</noinclude>

<!– To list templates discussed at WP:TFD use

* {{tfdl2|template name|log date (optional)|discussion name (optional)|discussion start date|discussion close date|result}}

New items should be placed at the top of any existing list, directly below this hidden notice. –>

<noinclude>== See also ==

== See also ==

* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark/Article alerts]], a bot-maintained listing of a variety of changes affecting Denmark related pages including deletion discussions

</noinclude>

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Denmark. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace “PageName” with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Denmark|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Denmark. For the other XfD’s, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia’s deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG. Note that the article currently contains only database sources and zero sources with WP:SIGCOV. Per WP:SPORTSCRIT one source with significant coverage must be added to the article in order to keep the article (see final bullet point). Finding sources per WP:NEXIST is not enough to pass this mandatory criteria per the RFC outcome against building sportsbio pages with only databases. Editing of the article must happen to meet the policy guideline required at SPORTCRIT, and editors should not make keep arguments until a minimum of one non-database source with SIGCOV is physically present in compliance with the RFC outcome.4meter4 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:POLOUTCOMES states “Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable.” Appears to fail WP:GNG as I believe only one of the sources in the article could constitute significant coverage. All of these references 1 2 3 4 are not articles, but rather mentions of her on the internet, and these 5 6 are just primary routine diplomatic coverage. This reference behind a paywall also doesn’t appear to be specifically about Beckvard. The honours and decorations she has received also appear to be 3rd and 4th class decorations, and possibly standard fare in dipomatic circles. Internet searches on the subject have yielded no substantive independent coverage.

Disclaimer, in attempting to tidy up the article I have removed 4 other references – these were the subject’s LinkedIn page and 4 articles written by Beckvard. Uhooep (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is is odd to me to think that non-notable people get routine coverage. Passing mentions, sure, but routine coverage? For what is a decently written biography, it certainly doesn’t feel like an improvement to Wikipedia to delete this article. The cited essay is not policy, and the explicit wording of WP:NPOL does apply to ambassadors. Additionally, it is explanatory not prescriptive, and does not prevent ruling that NPOL does apply to ambassadors. While maybe it hasn’t been interpreted that way in the past, there is no reason it can’t be now. I know this will not be enough for some people, so [1][2][3][4][5] – Ike Lek (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only reference in the article that would contribute to GNG is [6]. There is consensus that NPOL doesn’t cover ambassadors for notability purposes. I’m not sure if honors the subject received Knight of the Order of the Dannebrog and/or Officer of the Ordre national du Mérite qualify under WP:ANYBIO#1, but this seems the best chance of passing notability. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I wasn’t able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was not able to find any sources. There is also no recognition in the music industry as a band or of their members independently, no significant music sales or streams. No WP:GNG, nothing I could find for WP:NMUSIC. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply