Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunnar Stavseth

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Stavseth

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

Fails WP:NBIO due to sources not providing notability. Deletion probable. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, member of Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears Gunnar was a parliamentarian, but I cannot verify the Norwegian source. It says here: [1] he was a "substitute representative." I lean delete as someone who appeared in parliament but was not necessarily a parliamentarian does not necessarily pass WP:NPOL, in my opinion. I can't find anything WP:GNG related either. Still, I have no firm vote. SportingFlyer talk 04:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may not have this exactly right, but my understanding is that the Norwegian government uses a process whereby if a regular Stortingsrepresentant is unable to attend a sitting for some reason, a "substitute representative" attends in their place to ensure that the Storting is fully populated at all times — so even if he's not the official representative for his district, he still has sat in the Storting. Personally, I lean toward the belief that we should keep such articles, because if the sub has actually sat in the parliament then there are likely to be instances where a reader is actually looking for information about them because they had a role in debates or votes that took place on the days they were attending — but I can see valid arguments on both sides, and I can recall only one prior case of such an article showing up at AFD for discussion that I know of, so I'm not prepared to say there's a clear consensus one way or the other about this. I'd be more convinced of its keepability if there were more sources than just his profile on the Storting's own website, though, because even for a regular representative the "inherent" notability is because they get media coverage, not just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that he was a substitute, or deputy as the article days, who met in Parliament to cover for a "regular" representative is correct. It's not possible to meet (and vote) in Parliament without being a parlamentarian. Geschichte (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as a deputy rep of the Storting Staveseth meets WP:NPOL but, apart from the cites already in the article, i have been unable to find much else about him (a gsearch brings up lots of mirror of the wikiarticle only). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I added some more about his work in the press. I don't know if that will help on the notability. Regards, GAD (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [[WP:NPOL]] as a former member of Stortinget, length of tenure regardless. We presume that such a biography can be sourced to meet GNG/BASIC. And further sourcing is needed here. Sam Sailor 11:12, 15 May 2018 (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.