Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carina Axelsson (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Flowerparty ☀ 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable author, has 3 books published by vanity presses. the single reference given in the article is to a photo caption of her appearing in a fashion show LuvGoldStar (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete How on earth did this pass the last AFD? Absolutely no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How? Phil Bridger and DGG made up reasons to keep it, her relationship with somebody famous and the fact that one of her books was translated so the author of any book translated is inherently notable. In other words, the usual suspects. Drawn Some (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that no one bothered to add the citations identified in the last AfD. Just because the article isn't cited doesn't mean the subject isn't notable and that there aren't citations to sources with substantial coverage available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They were added. Then they were removed again, not because they were unreliable (being, as they were, articles in DerWesten and Augsburger Allgemeine) but because they "not translated" into English. Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger's so-called "made up reason" was that multiple independent sources documenting this person in depth existed. That's far from a made up reason.  That's Notability.  Uncle G (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very flattered to be credited with making up the general notability guideline, but I think, in fact, that that honour goes to Uncle G rather than me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Extremely non-notableDroliver (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom...now waiting for the rescue squad to appear. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR (claim of fame) and whatever else it is someone is trying to claim notability for her for. Previous AFD's "keep" result was at odds with the actual votes, poor decision on closing admin's part. DreamGuy (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep . That a Danish children's book isnt held in the US & Canada is not an sign on non-notability--a low worldCat result is irrelevant here. She also seems to be notable in other respects, though that was removed as poorly sourced. While removing the questionable sources, 3 good published articles in German on her were removed as well, so I re-added them as reviews of what seems to be her best known book.  It is possible that they may source the removed material also--I need to read them more carefully. That they are  not in English does not detract from them.
 * We see this sequence from time to time: Kept at AfD. Then someone deletes the references, and then deletes the text as unreferenced, and  the stripped article is nominated again for deletion. I quote the edit summary from the person--not the nominator --who removed them "Remove articles which are not translated"  !!  That a children's book book is translated into two languages is indeed reason to think it notable, since very few of them are, though it is not one of the formal criteria. And I see no evidence that the publisher is a vanity press. We don't need the rescue squad, we just need someone to keep away the vandals.  I use that word deliberately for those who remove sourced information because the sources are not in English--it's among the more polite of the terms that come to mind I'm delighted that someone tries to denigrate me & Phil  by calling us "usual suspects" for catching this sort of thing, that's just what we try to do. They missed UncleG, whom I claim as a comrade in such deeds.DGG (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
 * Keep. Per the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that were referenced in the last AfD and, before the references were deleted, in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR despite what is said above. She may deserve a mention in Danish wikipedia but definitely not in English--AssegaiAli (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems there are quite a few non-English sources, although many don't appear to be online. That said, the online sources are reliable and non-trivial in their coverage, and seem sufficient to establish notability, both through her children's books and relationship with Prince Gustav. Plus she seems interesting in her own right. (Not a notability issue, but made researching her more fun). In regard to the nom's comments on her books, they don't seem to be vanity press at all, and her first book has been listed on the NSW Premier's Reading Challenge. - Bilby (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails the general notability guidelines as well as the specific guidelines for authors:

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

We can try to make up all kinds of reasons to declare someone who is not notable (relationship with a famous person, having a children's book translated from Dutch to another language) but they are either notable or not. An occasional waiver of the notability guidelines is fine but it shouldn't become routine or they become meaningless. Drawn Some (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no need to have any waiver of notability guidelines when a subject has had significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Rather than selectively copy and paste stuff here from the guidelines please explain how the sources that I offered in the previous AfD and were deleted from the article do not amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I have made no claim that this person's relationship with a famous person, or that the translation of one of her books, makes her notable, only that (in case you didn't hear the first two times) significant coverage in independent reliable sources makes her notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe the so-called "reviews" were removed because they aren't actually reviews. I firmly believe misrepresenting sources (whether through ignorance or not) is not something to take lightly. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have made no claim that the sources are "reviews". They are significant coverage in independent reliable sources about the article subject, which is what is needed for notability, whether reviews or other types of coverage. I would ask you to withdraw any accusation of misrepresentation unless you can provide evidence for it. The only misrepresentation I can see in this discussion is the assertion that I "made up" reasons to keep the article in the last AfD discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's where you talk about her relationship with someone gets "lots of coverage in the gossip columns" and here's the diff where DGG characterizes articles as "reviews" when they aren't and here's where DGG says it's notable because it's been translated even though libraries don't hold it. For general notability you need significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources for the topic of the article. The end.  Drawn Some (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - fair enough. However, she does have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, so all should be good. A few are used in the article, but I gather there are some really good (and extensive) offline ones as well, and I know of a few more not currently being used. - Bilby (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, someone needs to actually demonstrate significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources rather than just talking about it. Writing a book that gets translated doesn't make someone notable and neither does being mentioned in articles about children's reading programs or dating nobility. etc. Gossip columns by their nature aren't the sort of sources we should be using to build an encyclopedia.  Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. Drawn Some (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's there, Drawn Some. That's the point--the coverage you ask for -- it is actually there. Read the article, read the uncensored earlier versions, read the 3 supporting articles in German reliable sources. Being discussed at length as the major topic of multiple articles in RSs is notability. General newspaper articles about authors are exactly the sort of thing we do most prefer to use for notability about people in general. I do not know why anyone would think otherwise. incidentally, I put them in reviews for convenience, but you are welcome to move them to references where they really go, and to add all the information from them.  I should add to my previous list of ways to destroy an article, the method of asking for references, and then denying their importance or their relevance on whatever excuse will offer, including the most feeble of all, that they're in the wrong place in the article. They are even more than reviews, they are general articles about the individual and her work.  Personally, I don't hold much by the General notability guideline if we can find something better, but for the majority of Wikipeidians here, who do go by it, sources are sources, and when there are RSs, Wikipedia  keeps the article. DGG (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there significant in-depth coverage? I notice you won't actually say that.  Did you read the articles? What do you assess them to be about?  Are you seriously claiming that they discuss Carina Axelsson in-depth? Drawn Some (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did, and yes, they are sufficient to establish notability. This is specifically about her, talking about her background, this is about her and the award she instituted, and this one relates to her possible marriage. She's not horribly notable, and this is never going to be one of the more important entries in Wikipedia, but there's enough in the article now to meet WP:NOTE, (there wasn't when it was nom'ed), which is the primary concern, and it would seem that there is quite a bit of good material in RS's not currently used in the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those questions were directed at DGG who claims that trivial mentions in those supposed review articles somehow constitutes significant in-depth coverage. If you have in-depth coverage, Bilby, please add it to the article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No hassles - they've been added. I agree that some of the other material was less valuable in terms of content, though. I supect there's a good destinction to be made between non-trivial coverage and useful coverage. But that's probably not a discussion for here. :) - 15:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources is now in the article - there is no requirement that this coverage must be in English. Significant is not "in depth" but as the notability guideline says "directly in detail" and I am confident that the foreign language sources do meet that requirement. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "In detail" and "significant" mean and require "in depth". Trivial coverage doesn't establish notability. DreamGuy (talk)
 * DreamGuy is correct, the notability guidelines are quite clear, it must be both significant and in-depth. Drawn Some (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is probably just a semantic point but neither WP:N or WP:BIO talk about "in depth" and I have always taken "in depth" to mean there must be pages and pages of material on the subject of the article. "In detail" and significant I believe can be met by having several paragraphs as long as that content is specifically focused on the subject of the article which in this case I believe is met. Trivial coverage would be a sentence of two mentioning the article subject in passing. Tnis may be why we reach a different conclusion regarding this article. Davewild (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider several paragraphs focused on the subject in detail in-depth, although it may lack breadth. Several reliable sources are needed.  The problem here is the articles presented and labeled as reviews were not reviews and did not focus on the subject, they were only trivial mentions in articles with other subjects as the topic.  The gossip columns are not reliable sources by their very nature--being gossip.  Verifiability becomes an issue as well, a subject may have several sources providing significant in-depth coverage but much of the article may still be unverifiable.  Drawn Some (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – I'm seeing this similarly to Davewild, I believe. While the sourcing may not yet be enough to write a lengthy, comprehensive article about her, there is enough non-trivial coverage—for example, the multiple articles about her in Expressen; the articles Bilby points out above—to pass the general notability guideline. A gossip column in a major newspaper need not be dismissed out-of-hand as unreliable; there may be uncontentious material verifed (such as her career changes), and it's usually pretty clear what is merely a rumour. And I'm not seen any major breaches of WP:V or WP:BLP with the article as it currently stands.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The numerous sources demonstrate ample notability in several respects. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:30, 27 June 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.