Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endre Lund Eriksen


 * 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 per WP:HEY and WP:OUTCOMES and the massive amount of work making it a suitable WP:BLP showing WP:BASIC is easily met. Sorry Bearcat, but your nomination of this new article seemed to be based on current state and did not look to WP:POTENTIAL... and SwisterTwister, you really NEED to use WP:BEFORE both here and over WP:NPP. Remember, not all WP:UGLY articles are crap. Thanks going out to Robman94 and Sam Sailor for their fine efforts. (sig)  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Endre Lund Eriksen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer, based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source media coverage shown, of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. Basically this amounts to "writer who exists", but it takes more than that (e.g. major award wins, etc.) to get a writer over the Wikipedia inclusion bar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and none of this suggests better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister   talk  02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I have found many references, the only problem is they're all in Norwegian, so I conclude that this author is quite notable in Norway, and that should be good enough to keep the English version of this article. Robman94 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you know if any of those sources were secondary sources? Many of the sources on the English-language article look primary to me. -- Shudde  talk 17:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in Norwegian stuff, but they appeared to be secondary to me, not positive though. Examples: 1 2 3 Robman94 (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has had a lot of work done to it since it was nominated and currently has 58 references. Is there any need to keep this AfD open? Robman94 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Had the mandatory due diligence been performed prior to AfD nomination, a mere look at no:Endre Lund Eriksen would have eliminated a mistake such as as subject indeed has received several notable awards making him likely to pass per WP:ANYBIO. Award wins are however not currently part of the WP:AUTHOR section of the WP:NBIO SNG as seems to be implied here. But subject also passes WP:AUTHOR: his breakthrough book Pitbull-Terje går amok (lit.  Pitbull-Terje runs amok) was turned into the film Pitbullterje (2005), with manuscript by Lund Eriksen, and won the 2006 Amanda Award for Best Children and Youth Film. All this and more is now properly referenced in the article with citations to reliable, secondary sources. An abundance exist on subject making him easily also pass the SNG criterion WP:BASIC; why were these not found prior to nomination? Sam Sailor Talk! 11:22, 6 May 2016 (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.