Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Svensk


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Fredrik Svensk

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is blatant promotion (as pointed before by other users), lacks references/sources Gardenchef19 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2. Nom's only edits are creating AfDs for this and Paletten. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK #2 as AleatoryPonderings said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the 'merits' of the article itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - per WP:CSK. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Haven't seen enough yet to make a determination on notability or lack thereof either here or on the related nomination of Paletten, but I dispute the notion that WP:CSK #2 applies here. I've helped process many a nomination by an IP or a new account, and while these have, to put it charitably, varied widely in terms of merit, that does not mean that they have not been made in good faith.  Nom is persistent--I'll assume that this is the same person as the one behind the IPs who had AfD-tagged the articles previously (which I reverted as incomplete noms)--but I see no indication that the intent is frivolous, vexatious, or malicious.  Unless something new comes up, the discussion should proceed.  --Finngall talk  15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article shows an abyssmal failure to pass GNG. The page from his employer is not indepdent, so we have at best one source that passes GNG, which requires multiple sources, and I do not see strong evidence that even that source passes GNG requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG; maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Most of the secondary sources on him come from 'aftonbladet', which I don't see as a reliable independent secondary source. I disagree that WP:CSK#2 applies here, and disagree with the reasons given to invoke it here. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * comment by the way, can't lose the opportunity to summon Please do not bite the newcomers and Assume good faith haha Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 08:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment My only question is whether there's an argument for WP:NPROF C8 or similar here.  Editorship of a well-established publication like Palatten is not nothing.  (But this is the only assertion of notability in the article, and I didn't see anything else on searching.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm not convinced that being co-editor-in-chief of an art magazine is the sort of academic journal leadership described in WP:PROF and if not for that we would need evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of anyone making a case that being one of 3 chief-editors for an art magazine confers notability, and with no other evidence in sight of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 4 September 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.