Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikram Kolmannskog

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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Kolmannskog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DeletePretty flimsy references, has published some works - seems not notable to me. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, you see "flimsy", I see multiple independent non-trivial coverage. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first three reference should validate the WP:BLP per WP:THREE. Instead there is an interview style ref and that is it. Nothing else. Where is the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep multiple coverage examples from independent sources. Balle010 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is 1 reference, an interview, in a queer magazine that is so skint that it can't even a new SSL certificate. A very good indication of readership numbers. The rest are passing mentions and not sufficiently independent, in-depth or secondary.scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep multiple independent sources to show notability. Wm335td (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Surprised to hear that independent, reliable sources are judged based on their SSL certificate, or even their readership numbers. Also, that is not what WP:THREE means at all. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, it is wrong. I've been doing too many Afd's and I think I got mixed up. scope_creep^Talk 06:04, 21 August 2020 (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.