Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Forså


 * 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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Marie Forså

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

Absence of RS. Fails GNG & ENT and is woeful for a BLP Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bobherry  Talk   Edits  01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is related to the Swedish sin. Book hits include, and , though the hits are not very in-depth, Forså's name is brought up as a selected mention. Another article related to a book is behind a paywall, but the Google preview gives the quote Alltmedan svenska nakenmodeller som Christina Lindberg, Marie Forså och Marie Ekorre gör internationella karriärer, i.e. international careers. What about contemporary sources? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. As pointed out above, several writers keep coming back to Forså as a central figure in Swedish pornography of the era. Not just a journalist and writer like Kalle Lind (linked above), but Swedish scholar of pornography Mariah Larsson keeps including Forså multiple times. I've added a few references, expanded the article somewhat, and ordered one of the books mentioned above from a local university library (though this AfD dicsussion will be over by the time I've read it). /Julle (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable actress. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per improvements made by Julle. Per book hits. Per overall sourcing. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Insufficient sourcing. I went through ten pages of Google results and only found links to clips - no media coverage.  Linked films in filmography are only bit parts, and she's not even mentioned in their infoboxes. Flagged since 2010 for needing more sources (hatnotes were more recently backdated to 2006 and 2008). Fails WP:GNG, unless someone can provide more info demonstrating that the content in the books listed as sources is significant. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Timtempleton. What this comes down to for me is that the only references we have on her that might be usable are from the two books that are referenced in the article, but it's pretty likely going by the titles of the books that they are not in-depth coverage. If we are extremely lucky one might be, but that's not enough for notability on it's own. I'm not convinced by keep voters who cite "book hits" as a reason to keep either. Since it's akin to "keep because of the number of Google Search results" or something like that. Which isn't valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. Really not notable that much, and what Timtempleton is stating, not reliable sourcing, no online websites to prove it. Severe  storm  28  01:30, 14 January 2022 (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.