Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Ipsen


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. given the improvement that has occurred since the nomination. More sources would be better but the one that is present should be sufficient for the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Louise Ipsen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The person does not seem significant. No other citations can be found. Google books found some passing mentions matching her name, but they could be for others with the same name. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I found no notable coverage to back up this article. Zero. It sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Once sources used, while a RS, is barely a one-liner. Swedish Enclyclopedia? which seems ok, but I can't find anything else about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * One hit in Gscholar, appears to be a bio in German, but I'm not sure it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason why you can't find sources about this person is because she is Danish. Thus, she may not have many English language references, because the English speaking world has, until the era of the internet, not been very interested to write about the more obscure subjects of Danish history, such as notable women. She is a Dane, and she is included in the danish language encylopedia of notable women of Danish history. If you judge notablity from how many English language references there are about her, then there are many, many notable women of history that you should delete from Wikipedia. Prior to internet, the English speaking world wrote very sparingly about the more obscure history (in this case, women's history) subjects of smaller countries such as Denmark. It is one of the good things about the internet era that these obscure topics can be translated and made availabile to the English speaking world, since foreign language references are accepted in Wikipedia. It would not be a good policy to contradict that development. --Aciram (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Gscholar didn't turn up sources in any language, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not uncommon for obscure historical subjects which are less well known. Historical 19th-century women of small countries are not likely to have much information online even when they are notable. For example: there was zero results on Swedish actresses of the pre-1773 period online until they were given their first articles in Swedish language wikipedia. None. That was because Swedish theater history of that period was not even much known among Swedes, only the experts. The internet era is changing all that. Not every notable subject is yet online, particularly not about obscure subjects such as "women's history" which has long been neglected, and not all books are digitalized. They are however to be found in actual material books outside of the internet, in this case not English language books. --Aciram (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aciram and WP:ANYBIO#3. pburka (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of gender, if major business executives of Denmark and other such countries qualify for inclusion on enWP, this should be kept. I am about to edit the article slightly for clarity. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a business executive does not qualify anyone for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However, being included in a dictionary of national biography does (per WP:ANYBIO). pburka (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You apparently missed the word "major" in my comment. Had you not missed it, I doubt you'd have thought your objection was warranted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which notability guideline supports the inclusion of major business executives? pburka (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No notability guideline specifies categories of people of major interest. I'm surprised you don't know that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per Aciram. -Yupik (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: There are many versions of her names. So far, I have come across Christine Louise Ipsen, Christine Lovise Ipsen, Louise Ipsen, Lovise Ipsen, Bjerring, Bierring, Biering, Bjering, etc (and I had never heard of her before seeing this AfD a half hour ago). She is listed in the census of 1850 as Lovise Bjerring. -Yupik (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Significance is established in the first couple sentences. This is not a living person so we do not need extensive sourcing. It seems that further sourcing is being researched though, and further strong sources if found will further bolster the case for keeping. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aciram Elttaruuu (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (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.