Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom


 * 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. This debate is now turning in circles while the consensus is pretty obvious. Time to stop this. Tone 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Anders Örbom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This genealogical entry on a non-notable military officer violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If, by that, you mean "an essay suggests that saying only 'non-notable' might not be sufficient for deletion'", then I agree with you. Otherwise, your comment is misinformed at best and deliberately useless at worst. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Non notable to you perhaps. Omegastar (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is so non-notable, how come several swedish writers wrote about him? Further more he wasnt just a captain, he was a squadron chief. Wikipedia doesnt offer an article about squadron chiefs, but a search on google shows its commanding/officer rank. Omegastar (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus is pretty clear, so in order not to drag on the process any longer ill support the concsensus. I do urge people to keep a NPOV on such matters. There are, for example, a significant amount of biographies about the american civil war that would fit the criteria for deletion easily. RAN: I would like to thank you for putting so much work into the article. I suggest you store it somewhere, because who knows? Maybe itll find a place here in the future. Omegastar (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable is the number-one valid reason for deletion. I applaud well-referenced articles, but I don't see the historical significance of Captain Orbom.  He fought in the Battle of Poltava, but 60,000 other men did so as well.  I'm willing to listen to an argument as to why someone considers him to be notable ("non notable to you perhaps" indicates that there's someone who will argue his case), but I don't even see that he was a footnote in world history.  Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 *  Keep Comment WP:BIO States that a article is notable if is it "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" I would argue that someone born 1675 that have current reprinted references written about him, even if they are short, are both notable and did actually leave a footnote in history since we are actually discussing him here and now, more than 300 years later. If this person was a Lieutenant that survived the Battle of Poltava, was held prisoner for 13 years, returned home, it for sure is interesting or unusual in my mind. I linked this to deletesort WP:MILHIST, I hope they have people with experience about similar articles and can add some old consensus to the debate, I might be wrong :-). --Stefan talk 09:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This will be a delete, and it should be according to WP:BIO, but just think if this person was alive today, I think he would have passed WP:BIO easily with todays thousands of papers, magazines, the internet and all. It is very hard to pass WP:BIO for 300 year old people, there is a builtin BIAS against historical persons for meeting Notability, but maybe that is good, not sure. Nevermind lets delete and add some more pokemon characters :-) --Stefan talk 15:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —--Stefan talk 09:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is simply not enough significant coverage of this specific individual in sources to pass the general notability guidelines.  Chzz  ►  21:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage in English language media means not notable enough for en.wiki. Yilloslime T C  21:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you point out that rule in Wikipedia, I have never heard of it, or seen it invoked before ... it is also a Swedish Wikipedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed--not only is there is no such rule, it would be a direct contradiction of one of the basic principles of WP:RS and WP:N. Sources in any language will do, both to show notability and for information in an article. The English Wikipedia covers the entire world, and someone or something notable anywhere is notable here. The only significance of the word "English" is that  the encyclopedia is written in English.  Fortunately,  we have people here who can work with sources in any language--probably to a greater extent than any of the other language WPs have.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that using non-English sources is 100% in line with WP:RS. (Though in situations where a fact could be sourced to both English and non-English sources, we should use the English one for the convenience of the reader, assuming the sources are otherwise equivalent.) But wether non-English sources can establish notability is a different matter, and it's a gray area at best. People like to cite WP:BIAS as though it were a policy or guideline, but in reality its not even an essay. It's a wikiproject.... At any rate it seems to me that as en.wiki serves an English speaking audience, we should be putting our effort into writing articles that are relevant to English speakers. If no one else is writing about at topic in English, we shouldn't be either. In other words: It's on Swedish wikipedia; that's great, people can find it there; there's nothing to be gained by having an English version here. I know there's no actual policy backing this assertion up, but there's no actual policy contradicting it either, so it's a gray area, and something we can disagree about in forums like these. Yilloslime T C  06:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue for this article is a general lack of notability and historical relevance, not that the sources are written in a language you don't speak. There is no "gray area" here, only the suggestion that linguistic chauvinism would in any way be compatible with NPOV. Peter Isotalo 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's hard to assess the depth of the sources given that their titles haven't been translated from Swedish, but I see no reason to think that they're in-depth on the basis of the article's content, so WP:BIO isn't met Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They all seem like rather insignificant inclusions in non-general literature and sources. Most of them amount to little else but expanded army rosters. The preview of Ahnlund and Wichman hints at accounts of evangelical Christianity in Siberia, but this is still something that is generally applicable to the greater community of Swedish POVs in Russia. Most of the sources seem to merely repeat lot of the same basic facts, and I suspect that Lewenhaupt might be the source for most, if not all of them. There is basically zero secondary treatment of primary source material and no discussion of any historical significance. Peter Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that Peter. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are examples of individual participants of the Swedish campaigns in the Great Northern War that are notable. For example Jon Stålhammar is well-known by Swedish historians for his detailed accounts of his life and the letters to his wife, which have become important historical sources. I don't see anything remotely interesting in the life of this particular individual, though. He fought in battles, was captured after Poltava, came home, spawned children and died. There is nothing remarkable about this that sets him apart from countless other Swedish soldiers. Peter Isotalo 07:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article, references, or elsewhere suggests that this guy meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a major (or captain) who did nothing particularly out of the ordinary, thus fails WP:BIO. Buckshot06(prof) 10:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards keep per "non-notable" not being a convincing reason for deletion and as the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, i.e. a historical figure who is verifiable. Good job to Richard for his excellent efforts to reference!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion, and will remain a valid reason for deletion regardless of how many times you say it isn't. If wishes were fishes, you'd be a person who very strongly smelled of herring. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody, you should note that this is really not a routine NN vote-to-delete. I and others have valid reasons for saying that this person is inherently non-notable. And while it's nice to see that you care about saving articles, the personal essay you've linked to above seems to be asking for negative proof. The burden of proof always lies on those actually claiming notability, not those questioning it. I'm also rather impressed at the effort that Richard has spent on building up this article, but as a Swedish history student, I'm puzzled about the reasons. I can't see how the fate of a person like Örbom would amount to more than a statistic. His fate seems to be too similar to that of his fellow soldiers to be interesting as an individual. Peter Isotalo 07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While the article is well referenced, this person didn't do anything remarkable. It is very possible that the references are listing off all the officers of a given army (the title of the first reference . Karl XII's officerare: Biografiska anteckningar. certainly gives that appearance). Not every army officer is notable. My name found in a phone book, in the IBM directory, or even in my college yearbook, does not confer notability on me. Lacking some direct evidence that this officer is notable for something (more than just existing), delete as we are not a genealogy site. ++Lar: t/c 05:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is verifiable and we can write an article on him, that is good enough. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:N and WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we can always WP:IAR, because an established editor in good faith is writing an article about a subject that is important to at least him. That counts more than ever changing and disputed bureaucracy.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody, why not argue the merits of the topic itself instead of engaging in all this sweeping criticism of general policy? Since Richard isn't keen on arguing why this subject is notable beyond its mere existence in Swedish official records, I would expect that anyone wanting to keep the article would at least attempt to get their bearings on the topic and actually produce something substantial that would save the article. Or at least some informed argument relating to the historical period itself. So far I get the impression that your activities here haven't extended beyond pure inclusionist-vs-deletionist politics. Peter Isotalo 19:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.