Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirikur Bergmann


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Eirikur Bergmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional autobiography. Sources are not independent (e.g. author bios). PROD removed earlier in its life by 4the creator,, who is essentially the sole editor. Tagged as lacking sources since forver. Guy (help!) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.  ~ Amkgp  💬  15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the subject passes WP:NPOL because he was elected to Iceland's constitutional commission. The article also has sources sufficient to pass GNG. It is bad to have autobios but I don’t think there’s a good case for deletion here.  Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes requirements for notability about academics and political figures. In addition to having been a member of the much-studied and reported on constitutional commission, the individual described in the article is a very frequently cited political consultant in Icelandic media, as shown by a search of his name in some of Iceland's newspaper databases and news websites. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — TKSnaevarr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment As it's been brought up, I am not running a single-purpose account. I have made regular contributions to the Icelandic language version of Wikipedia for about three years, but I only occasionally edit the English version. TKSnaevarr (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment This is actually a difficult one - it's clearly an autobio, WP:NPOL requires significant coverage of local politicians, a constitutional council isn't something which would necessarily qualify, possible but not clear academic, possible but not clear writer. Lots of potential notability hooks. The issue is there's nothing in the article yet which shows anyone has taken notice of him, with the exception of a brief blurb - we've got an interview which typically don't count and a book review which is prefaced that the author of the book review is a long time friend of Bergmann, which I would assume is fairly common in Iceland. The best one is the blurb and a single two-star book review in Timarit.is. The sources provided by TKSnaevarr aren't helpful, either, as they're links to databases - Visir shows he's authored a lot of articles, ruv shows he's been quoted a bit. I'd really like two or three additional sources to put his notability beyond doubt, an additional book review, a profile on him, a discussion on him that doesn't quote him. Also, I'm probably a weak delete right now, but I have no problems with TKSnaevarr's !vote, does not appear to be a traditional SPA. SportingFlyer  T · C  05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable enough.  If kept, scrub off all promotional material (it's not too bad), note on talk page, with notice to him that wikipedia is not a press release service and AUTOBIO is not good behavior.  SportingFlyer, I agree with your note about better sources.  There are 2 or 3 third-party sources on the .is version that may help.  --Lockley (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Having come back to this and considered the arguments from other editors. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2020 (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.