Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aksel Fugelli

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Fugelli

[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 GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, meets WP:NAUTHOR with multiple books on one of the major publishing houses in his country. Dlthewave, can you disclose your methods of finding coverage? Don't say Google now. That wouldn't hold water when the sources are both in a foreign (to you) language and from many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to speedy keep per WP:HEY in addition to WP:TROUTing the nominator up, down and sideways—after I added a small portion of media coverage, namely 10 reviews of one book alone. And as for 2022, like in previous years, I personally pledge to participate in as few AFD discussions as possible about countries like India, since I know so little about that country. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSK reason is being invoked here? –dlthewave ☎ 01:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to nominate a poorly-sourced article for deletion after a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search. It's unreasonable for an article creator who didn't bother to include any sourcing beyond Discogs and a list of books written, to expect others to do an extensive search in multiple languages. If you don't want your articles to end up at AfD, I would recommend starting them as drafts and moving them to mainspace only after they've been developed with GNG-level sourcing. And please don't claim "no accurate deletion rationale has been provided" for good faith nominations. Your best bet is to put your money where your mouth is by adding sources (which you've done) and politely point this out at AfD (which you seem to be struggling with). –dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on addition of references by User:Geschichte. @Dlthewave: - (1) Specifically on this nomination, between Google and the no-Wiki article (where it's clear that there are references in Norwegian) enough sources and pointers to sources are easily visible to indicate that the man is likely to be notable, even if you can't read them and won't be bothered to translate them. So it doesn't look as though you did make "a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search". (2) Generally, please get off your high horse. Be assured that you're in no position to be so patronising. Here we are at yet another (potentially) failed nomination because you can't cope with foreign language sources. Give it a rest. Ingratis (talk) 00:09, 6 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.