Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Dellert

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Dellert

[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)

The article subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as WP:ARTIST. I'm not finding many reliable sources that are secondary and independent of the subject that provides primary coverage of the person - certainly not enough to assert that "significant coverage" exists, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article cites nothing but Wikipedia as a source, definitely not a good source. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, there is nothing I can find even looking deep into Google and other sources. TheMesquito^buzz 01:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 01:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. TheMesquito^buzz 01:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV found in search, just a few trivial mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that he is also known as Thotte Dellert (this is mentioned in passing in the article) but searching on that name also doesn't provide any significant coverage of him, as opposed to his very well-known mother. Most sources that come up are articles about her, where Thomas/Thotte is mentioned in passing, and notability is not inherited. Neither WP:GNG nor the more specific notability guidelines WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE is met. --bonadea contributions talk 10:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am remaining neutral in this case, though I agree that the subject's encyclopaedic notability is miniscule as sourced. Please be aware however of this entry on my talk page where Dellert himself, or a user acting as Dellert, apparently wants this article deleted so a new one can be created, safe-to-assume with such big chunks of unsourced info which that user has been trying to add to this one lately. The user does not seem to understand, or doesn't care at all, about our need of reliable sources. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into this user while patrolling recent changes, and I responded to this user's request for assistance. It's what prompted me to look into the article's content, which then led me to assert that notability appears to fail in this case and the article hence should be deleted... not because this user claiming to be the article subject wants it deleted (this would be an invalid reason to consider a deletion - even if this user is confirmed to be the article subject), but because Wikipedia's proper process and guidelines conclude that it should be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the fact that Wikipedia has articles and article content only about people whom the community finds notable thanks to reliable sources, notwithstanding what any such person himorherself desires. Thank you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing - My response above was not meant to imply anything against you or that you didn't know this. :-) I was just stating the above for the record and for this AFD discussion as a whole. My apologies if my response above conveyed this in any fashion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. My thanks were sincere. I just wanted everyone to know the purported intentions of that user. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing - Ahh, I understand now. I'm a little slow right now... coffee is not yet finished brewing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also remaining neutral. An editor claiming to be the subject of this article asked on my talk page for help deleting it. (I still don't know why, as I don't think I'd ever interacted with him or even seen the article before.) I don't read Swedish, but using Google translate, that version of the article seems better than the English one. Can anyone evaluate the quality of the Swedish sources? Jonathunder (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are 3 sources in Swedish now, 2 old ones about the AlexCab show that I have looked at once before for another article, and one recent only about him being his mother's son. All are legitimate & published in well-reputed journals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing - Excellent! Thanks for evaluating those sources and for helping to examine this article to determine the right decision that should be made in regards to deletion. I sincerely appreciate it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:13, 16 January 2019 (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.