Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunvald Strøm-Walseng


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Gunvald Strøm-Walseng

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:BIO. admittedly he died in 1951 so recent coverage may be difficult to find. nothing in gnews or gscholar. gbooks has 2 hits of Books LLC which use WP as a source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has two claims of notability - his prominent legal career and his imprisonment by the Nazis for participation in a resistance movement. There are two references in Norwegian.  English language references are not necessary for a biography of a Norwegian, and online references are neither required nor expected for someone who died 60 years ago.  I see no reason to delete this article. Who cares whether Books LLC mentions him?  They mention and repackage everything categorized here.  Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "prominent legal career and his imprisonment by the Nazis for participation in a resistance movement" are not criterion for notability. the term prominent is subjective. gbooks captures a lot of historically important people.LibStar (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * even a google search reveals just mirrors of WP or directory listings of someone from Drammen. LibStar (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books doesn't index about 80% of the books in my personal library. I don't know how well they index Norwegian books of 60 years ago, but I know that they index only a small percentage of U.S. newspapers of that era.  The article has two references and claims of notability.  Google is great but not infallible.  Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "prominent legal career and his imprisonment by the Nazis for participation in a resistance movement" are not criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * one of the sources is Norsk fangeleksikon. Grinifangene, this merely confirms he was imprisoned. hardly establishes notability as the source would merely list this person. so you are really depending on one source and thus fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Resistance to and imprisonment by the Nazis would establish notability, and the article has two sources, so seems to meet our minimum criteria. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Resistance to and imprisonment by the Nazis is not a criterion for notability, there are tens of 1000s who fit this description. One source merely confirms he's been imprisoned. LibStar (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. article is useful, no expectation of much coverage in Google for someone who died 60 year ago. Useful also as a stub. Wxidea (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quickdraw on the WP:ITSUSEFUL? My primary point is that thin google coverage should not be held against the article (WP:GOOGLETEST). Being barrister is an important govt job. Let's see why this could be useful... If a reader was researching Norwegian Supreme Court cases, then this bio would be helpful as background. Also, if a reader were researching Nazi resistance, it is interesting that a barrister was motivated to be in the Milorg resistance. Regardless, the 2 citations seem notable enough to me. Wxidea (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you're still using a WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. Read my comment above, one of the sources merely confirms he's been imprisoned. Have you found any additional sources? LibStar (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it sounds like WP:ITSUSEFUL still to you. I don't have access to Norwegian libraries or archives. I just wanted to leave my voice here, to chip in on the AfD discussions in case anyone was on the fence. Regardless of policy, there's a common sense discussion about what could useful. Don't bother telling me that's WP:ITSUSEFUL. I have no other comments to share about this seemingly legit, short article, which someone felt compelled to upload in the first place. And I have no vested interest. Sounds like you are set on deleting it. Clearly you will prevail with the Wikipedia bureaucracy. Wxidea (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep enough coverage in WP:RS for notability. Chester Markel (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * one source merely lists him as being imprisoned. that is not indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I will check old newspapers in a library. Can't do that today. Geschichte (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete simply being a barrister, being a Milorg member, having sat in Grini and having an obituary does not constitute notability. Neither of the sources give sufficient coverage: the one is a notice of his death, and the other a listing as one of very many prisoners. The article also failed to explain why he is notable; there are thousands of barristers in Norway, and just as many people who opposed the occupation. Unless more substantial sources are added, this falls well below the threshold of inclusion. Arsenikk (talk)  20:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Being associated with at least three existing articles (Milorg, Drammen and Grini) may suggest notability, but we must weigh up the subject's significance in relation to those articles. Therefore: Was he anything more than a member of Milorg? Apparently not. Was his tenure as town attorney for Drammen more significant than most other town attorneys? Apparently not. Was his imprisonment in Grini significant (whether being imprisoned due to his significance or being significant as a prisoner)? Apparently not. Incidentally, I'd expect that if the subject was already notable, than the Norwegian Wikipedias (Nynorsk or Bokmal) would already have articles or some other mention of him, which they apaprently don't. In other words, unless the Norwegian WPs have stricter inclusion criteria or have extremely low numbers of editors working in relevant areas, I'd expect to find this subject in one of their WPs prior to appearing on the English WP. LordVetinari (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian Wikipedias don't have "extremely low numbers of editors", but do have low numbers in relevant areas, and can't be used as an example. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added two newspaper sources and one encyclopedic source. It shows that he did have a short obituary in both Norway's largest newspaper Aftenposten and the up-and-coming (largest newspaper from 1981) VG. An online search in Norway's largest newspaper gives 38 hits, most or all are about him, including both a jubilee notice and some court reports (alas, all of these are behind a paygate). He must have had notability in his time, as a barrister in the Supreme Court. What do for instance you think, Arsenikk? Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A search of the National Library of Norway's database bokhylla.no gives 9 hits on the (quite uncommon) name "Strøm-Walseng". 8 of these relate to Gunvald. 6 of these refer to him solely as a pre-war barrister, 2 to his wartime activities. They're all brief mentions, all I can add to article using them is where the Germans initially held him after he was arrested in 1944. Manxruler (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which I've now added. Manxruler (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Included in an encyclopedia + three death notices in three different newspapers. Eisfbnore  talk 11:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * appearing in death notices is not indepth coverage. in fact funeral homes organize newspaper death notices on behalf of the deceased's family. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please quit commenting on each keep in this AfD? I think we already know your position on this, no need for repeating each time someone !votes to keep this article. Eisfbnore  talk 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it's a legitimate comment because you seem to think death notices equals indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think that you're able to say the same about all the other comments you've made to every keep this AfD? I wouldn't think so. Your behaviour here is bordering on WP:POINT and WP:DIS. Also, you're erecting straw men here. I've never said that death notices always implies indepth coverage. I've just said that, this person being included in a reliable enterprise encyclopedia TOGETHER with having no less than three death notices in three different newspapers certainly makes him notable. Eisfbnore  talk 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * death notices add almost nothing to notability. If my grandfather died, I could easily ask 3 different newspapers to publish 3 death notices. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And how about the encyclopedia entry? Eisfbnore  talk 09:46, 19 May 2011 (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.