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. Sandstein 07:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Else Methi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, and WP:GNG is also failed. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You have to see her in the perspective of that era and that Norwegian secondary sources of that era are not online. In that era there were, for women, no Olympic Games (in women's speed skating from 1960, for men since 1921), no European Championships (from 1970, for men since 1891). And yes, there were world championships but Norway only sent the best women to the World Championships. In that era women's speed skating was popular. Let me show, the Netherlands was in women's long trak speed skating not as good as Norway, but the newspapers of the Netherlands are online. And of all people who were ative at national level in the Netherlands are meeting GNG. I created many of them; see for insntace the list of names at Template:Kortebaan speed skaters (women). To come back to Methi, she finished third at the national championships where at elite level only 5 women started and because she was part of the national team, she was a main women speed skater in that era. You say "bronze medal on national level is extremely far from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT", but note that all more recent Norwegian speed skating people who have won a bronze medal at the national championships have a Wikipedia page. However, as it's of the pre-internet era, you have to look in newspapers to establish GNG. The Norwegian newspapers of that era are not online (by my knowledge). And because the most important thing at Wikipeida is Wikipedia:Readers first, this article gives usefull information about a main Norwegian long track speed skater and her background, marriage etc. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Newspaper wrote about here, see here for example 4 March 1957 here. An article about á Championships she competed in in 1957. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See these norwegian newspapers https://www.nb.no/search?q=%22Else%20Methi%22&mediatype=aviser as Else Methi <- this spots also some namesakes at the National Library of Norway. PS. Not all norwegian newspapers are digitized like this in the searchresult here. Best regards Migrant (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources uncovered so far all appear passing; do we have evidence that any Norwegian women skaters of her calibre in the '50s and '60s were profiled in depth? If not, then it doesn't matter if sources mentioning her are likely to exist offline -- we cannot assume any of those actually bring her up to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply, and comments @JoelleJay:: Your question: "do we have evidence that any Norwegian women skaters of her calibre in the '50s and '60s were profiled in depth?" --> If we take a look at the medalists at the national championships of the 2nd half of the 1960s, they all participated at the Olympics. An example of a skater in the same era, that didn't go to the Olympics but medallad at the national championships was Gerd Inger De Groot (article I created las October). To illustrate this, there was a reunion of the skaters of that era in 2015 receiving media attention (for instance here), and that says a lot those women receive media attention 60 years later. And see also for instance attention during her 70th birthday here. She also had media attention when she was active. 5 nice examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note that the uncovered sources are not only passings. She has mentions in about 100 newspapers. She is described in many articles in several sections and sentences, articles like this. You see she had a lot of podium finished and won many competitions. And the basics of WP:GNG states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." (and nice in addition: We can also read that she was a handball player, in the newspapers described as a "dangerous" player. see here.) SportsOlympic (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SportsOlympic, ok so I do agree this article on Gerd Inger de Groot is a bit more than passing mention, although not quite SIGCOV. However, this, this, this, this (all on Gerd) are clearly passing mentions in the equivalent of match reports, as is the article mentioning Else. I can't access the reunion article -- can you say how much detail it gives on the individual women? And the birthday article on Gerd is obviously not independent so irrelevant to notability concerns. I'm still not convinced there is sufficient coverage of these athletes to warrant standalone articles on them, and certainly not enough to presume coverage exists for Else. The evidence I'm looking for is SIGCOV in several papers -- if this can be demonstrated for the large majority of skaters at this level then I'd be much more confident with assuming coverage exists offline for Else. Otherwise we don't have anything to support "a very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available". JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JoelleJay:, Thanks for your reply. Sorry for my bit of a short reply: Note the above mentioned newspapers were some random picks. See that she has coverage in almost 2000 newspaper articles. Showing Norway had a very good coverage of speed skating already in that era. And note, that when an article has in the title the name of the speed skater, it can't be said it's a trivial mention, and sports is about race reports. See for instance the agreement on that per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy van der Poel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Kantanen and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalanbayar Delgermaa. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • SportsOlympic, if it's merely a routine results report it is a trivial mention regardless of whether the article title has the subject in it. Appearing in headlines wasn't considered whatsoever in any of the AfDs you linked, so I don't see how those establish any consensus. Kantanen was kept because there were no delete !votes, so it would be very hard for a close to go any other way even if the keeps were weak arguments. Delgermaa was kept because she actually has one in-depth article on her, which for the !voters was enough to suggest offline Mongolian sources existed (and I doubt most of the !voters actually verified with Google translate the level of coverage in the sources you provided, since the first is clearly passing mention and the third is a non-independent interview). This had nothing to do with her being in/reference by a headline. The van der Poel article was kept because delete !voters couldn't point to a specific guideline that excluded local sources from contributing to notability -- again, literally nothing to do with headlines. JoelleJay (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • JoelleJay, sorry maybe I was too short, I wanted to point out that coverage of race results counts towards notability. The point that headlines are not trivial mention is a basic thing. It’s (usually) the most important information of that article in one sentence. If that’s not counting to notability the whole article wouldn’t be notable. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • SportsOlympic, in-depth coverage of race results may count toward notability; match reports are specifically mentioned as non-noteworthy in wp:routine, which is the basis for multiple sections on notability in WP:NSPORT. If being in a headline was enough to count for SIGCOV, winners in individual sports at basically any level would automatically be more notable than winners in team sports. This is obviously not the case, not least because coverage of athletes in routine sports reports is almost always extremely shallow. Playing in many games yields significant breadth in coverage, but does not contribute to the required depth. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • wp:routine are notability guideliness for events. The shown articles indeed are not enough to create an stand alone article of these competitions per wp:routine. The basics for WP:NSPORT is not Wikipedia:Notability (events) but WP:GNG. And besides of that, within a winning team sport team not every individual will be notable. New articles about teams sports have many times a headline about the most important player. Also WP:GNG is about coverage, not specifically about in dept coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and NSPORT specifically links to wp:routine when describing the events during which coverage of an athlete does not contribute to notability. It is linked in this sentence: Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage; defining characteristics of "routine" are outlined further here: College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage and here: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. (note that the context is irrelevant as it is "routine" being linked to/described rather than some local or high school-specific criterion), and it is referenced again here: significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. It is basically saying coverage of athletes in non-notable sports events must be very clearly beyond the standard post-match summaries and profiles. SIGCOV uses the term "triviality" when discussing depth, which is explicated in NSPORT here: Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. JoelleJay (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: JoelleJay, be careful not to WP:BADGER the user. Dr. Universe (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 3rd related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Schjenken. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete There is an absolute pile of routine coverage in the newspapers linked above. Unfortunately it's only snippets so when her name is mentioned in prose it's tough to determine if there's any actual depth. If sources could be found showing any depth of coverage I would be happy to hop over to keep. Also, I'm not sure about the machine translation of an old scanned newspaper, but it's possible she arrested 40,000 nazis. Else Methi 11. (The last two had a shorter course). 40,000 Nazis have been arrested in Vienna since the liberation. If she did single handedly arrest tens of thousands of nazis, or even did that as part of an elite team of female speed skater secret agent nazi hunters, I would also be firmly on the keep side. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm unsure of whether this helps meet WP:GNG, but I found she was involved in a ~35 minute documentary called Twin Trek going in depth into her family history. Whether it counts as a secondary source entirely depends on the content and presentation of it. Here's the machine translation of article about it (the names match up with her obituary), and the documentary disc is still available on Amazon. It seems to be on Prime Video in some countries. Overall, I'm mixed on notability. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses x, I feel like that would help, but I googled "twin trek" "else methi" and got eight results, so I don't think it's a big enough documentary to really give much notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don’t understand how that Google-search determinates the notability of the source. According to GNG a source doesn’t needs to be “big” or “national” for instance, as long the source is independent of the subject and is reliable. If “twin trek” is independent and reliable the source counts for GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really tough to determine if a source is independent or reliable when I can find almost no information on it. Assessing something requires information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 26 May 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.