Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of Ture Malmgren


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tomb of Ture Malmgren

 * ... that Ture Malmgren created a tomb (pictured) for himself by the foot of the mountain Fjällsätern, but was buried elsewhere by the local authorities after his death in 1922?


 * Reviewed: Pentemont Abbey
 * Comment: Hook is cited in the first paragraph. Picture was taken by me, and fully released into the public domain.

Created by Stamboliyski (talk). Self-nominated at 09:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article new and long enought, QPQ done. However, while this is interesting local history and the photo fine, I have serious concern about the notability of this tomb as a stand-alone article in English Wikipedia. The sources are rather weak; two of the sources are blogspot entries by a local association focused on Ture Malmgren; another souce Hansson, Wilhelm is off-line, but seems to be a kind of local history magazine, the fourth source is a newspaper article from 1922. And the article doesn't really say much about the tomb; it mostly says that it existed, but Malmgren was not enterred there; and a lot of the rest is general background info. I am afraid it seems to me that the existence of this tomb and the photo should simply be merged into the Ture Malmgren article. - Pinging - .  Iselilja (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll withdraw the nomination here if you want, but it certainly is notable as a public monument in the city. The website of the local history association are used as I could find nothing other on the modern-day status of being bricked-up, since I didn't want to do original research for that. The other two references from that page could easily be replaced by more in-depth references to books and other publications, if I just decided to bother digging through my bookcase. The Wilhelm source is not a "local history magazine", it is a legitimate history book written by the author of several other publications, repeatedly re-published due to its high public outreach. The 1922 newspaper article is used for easily-accessible (to me) background info, and can easily be replaced (as above). The tomb is written about in a number of other sources, mainly newspaper articles and reports from the 1930s all the way until the 1990s. None of these are digitalized, and not easily accessible to me as I now live in a separate city. Stamboliyski (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you should't withdraw it. I asked a question about this [|here (Notability issues and Reviews)] and it seems notability is not relevant for DYK; so I am passing this on to another editor for review. Sorry for the inconvenience. I also accept what you say about the Wilhelm source as a traditional RS.


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I am withdrawing from this review. Iselilja (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies – I'm not all too familiar with the processes here. Thank you for showing concern Stamboliyski (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't apologize, either ;) It was my fault who brought up the notability issue which doesn't belong in DYK. I just just have skipped this; so that's not what I am doing now. Hopefully, you get another reviewer soon. Iselilja (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg OK, I'm taking this on. New enough at the time of the nomination and long enough. No problems with neutrality. I note the comments above about the sourcing and AGF on them. The hook is interesting and reliably sourced. QPQ has been done too. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)