Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerd Kjellaug Berge


 * 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The result was  keep, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk  18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerd Kjellaug Berge

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsure of notability or precedents, elevating for discussion. Seems like a person doing a job. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, she has an article in a large and credible paper encyclopedia, which is already cited in the article. Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - comment above was made by article's creator.--Maashatra11 (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Independently of who wrote it, she still has an article in a paper encyclopedia. I didn't write that. Geschichte (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * weak keep, seems like a few Norwegian sources kicking about on google. Perhaps a few could be added to show why she isn't merely a common or garden hotelier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.94 (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument now qualifies as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions; see WP:GOOGLEHITS. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources exist, meets WP:GNG. Claritas § 16:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have been more precise to say "one source exists", see WP:BASIC: "..If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability..." I don't know how "deep" is the coverage of the person in the source provided; there is only one short paragraph in her subject, but nothing that seems "substantial". What really bugs me is how her notability shoud be asserted from the article. Is being vice president of some organisation enough to make her notable according to the policy? Maashatra11 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep: enough sources. Dewritech (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep clarly notable. Has an entry in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia and has held the second-highest position in Norway's dominating employers' federation. Has 301 hits in Atext, which searches Norway's leading newspapers, from 1984 to 2010. Arsenikk (talk)  20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The lead didn't reflect her major claim to notability, which is the national positions held; I've amended that though I'm not sure I've used the best wording, not being a business person. She's also received a medal from the king; I've added that and a language award. There are a plethora of news sources on her, going well beyond press release or local pride stuff. More of them need to be added; I've made a start to indicate what's out there, but she passes the threshhold in terms of coverage as well as in terms of distinction. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * strong keep:User:Maashatra11 to acquiant himself with deletion criteria.194.80.52.158 (talk) 08:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdraw, given the additional info and refs by User:Yngvadottir. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2010 (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.