Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnens lexikon


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Barnens lexikon

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Only source is an entry in world cat. Not clear the topic passes WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I added a review, but I haven't been able to find any additional reviews. I would expect a work like this would have been reviewed by publications aimed at libraries, parents or teachers when it was first published, but I can't find any online. The Swedish article is pretty much the same as the English one. Still, it seems like a topic that belongs in Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Eastmain: It was reviewed in major newspapers, actually; this was a big thing in Sweden. But the sources are printed and not easily accessible; even the material which has been digitized is (for copyright reasons) very inaccessible. See my comment below. /Julle (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This was an important publication, and generally reviewed in major newspapers (partial newspaper archive: a lot of newspapers are not included, as they have yet not been digitized); unforunately I can't access the full texts, which requires being at the National Library of Sweden or in front of one of the few university library computers with access, none of which reside in my city as far as I'm aware. A search in Mediearkivet which has full texts and more newspapers give hits, but only in passing; the articles are written decades after Barnens lexikon was published and refer to it as a thing everyone is assumed to be familiar with. In short, I'm utterly convinced this easily passes WP:GNG and is very relevant for inclusion: it was the Swedish encyclopedia for children of its time. But it was published in the early 80s; the relevant sources are print material. Through the National Library's newspaper archive, we can see that the articles exist, but not what they actually say so we could reference them. /Julle (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are English Wikipedians who would have access to the newspaper archive at the National Library of Sweden; those who live near the library or students or staff at universities with access to the archive. When I say that "we" can't read the articles I mean that they are not easily acessible to most of us. /Julle (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG since it has been reviewed in several newspapers. Sjö (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, since references have been added after it was taken to AfD, in combination with the articles I've pointed to above. /Julle (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on what's avaliable in the DN archive I'm convinced that GNG is satisfied. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2023 (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.