Frank Trojahn : Uffda608 ( talk ) 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  He appears to have been chief of the Danish naval staff.  Clearly there are sufficient sources available to cover the head of a European country's navy.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As the head of the Danish navy he seems sufficiently noteworthy.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'd imagine there must be some coverage of him in e.g. newspapers, but I'm having a hard time finding any.  Necrothesp and Hawkeye7 , any luck finding RS?  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To expand a bit, all I'm finding is short quotes like this , which don't really contribute to notability.  And given that WP:NSOLDIER is not a thing, we really need the SIGCOV.  Also noting that if SIGCOV can be identified for notability, this still looks like it's in need of a near-complete rewrite.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's... not a strong showing, I have to be honest.  is a speech by him doesn't really say anything about him is a very passing, reducing to "so-and-so visited so-and-so" has pretty much zero content "Rear Adm. Frank Trojahn, an attaché from Denmark, examines the cockpit of a UH-60" is pretty far from SIGCOV The only thing I can get to show on this page is "Fulde navn: kontreadmiral Frank Trojahn" Just an image caption, so-and-so visited so-and-so 64 words, including the heading.  It's all good info, but incredibly far from SIGCOV "so-and-so took part in event X", by the event organizer If this is the best there is, I'm worried we're pretty far in the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES territory.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 06:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I found a biography here Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As far as I can discern, HOD is, effectively, the Officers' Union of Denmark with the subject being, presumably, a member.  Seems a bit borderline w/r/t independence.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 08:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete sources provided do not amount to SIGCOV satisfying WP:GNG .  Mztourist ( talk ) 07:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per my comments above, unless better sources are identified.  - Ljleppan ( talk ) 10:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] To expand on my logic a bit since this seems to keep going: The subject is not covered by any of the WP:NBIO 's "Additional Criteria", meaning the article is governed solely by WP:NBASIC , which is equivalent to WP:GNG . There is no inherent notability for military positions (see e.g. the explicit deprecation of WP:NSOLDIER ). The sources identified so-far (as analyzed above) are all minimal, and I don't see them contributing at all towards the GNG. The only potential exception is the HOD (Officers' Union of Denmark) biography, but I would not consider that independent (given that the subject is most likely a member, contrast to e.g. citing a police union biography of a chief-of-police).  And even if it was independent, more than one good source is needed.  Ljleppan ( talk ) 09:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy.  A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search.  The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines.  If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping.  However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability.  Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources.  Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria.  One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here.  Finally, I note that WP:GNG is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL .  Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these.  It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion.  The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV .  Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted.  I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria.  Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion.  Finally, my own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG as the relevant policy.  A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search.  The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines.  If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping.  However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability.  Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources.  Shawn Teller (hy/hym) ( talk ) 14:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 18:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What is wrong with this ], which contains a full biography?  Why doesn't it count as SIGCOV?  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the lengthy biography uncovered by Hawkeye.  𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk ) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You don't consider the source (an officers' union ) non-independent?  Ljleppan ( talk ) 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep if we can’t retain a bio of the head of Denmark’s navy we might as well pack up.  Mccapra ( talk ) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hear!  Hear!  The ridiculous nominations (knowing the dogma of everything and the value of nothing ) keep on coming.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 09:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : There is a lack of reliable sources that detail the subject's background or history.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Notability is also not inherited.  Any efforts to retain this article without additional reliable sources would be only a subjective choice.  Multi7001 ( talk ) 02:31, 14 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus