Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nora Ibsen


 * 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. (Non-admin closure). Till 04:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nora Ibsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Where are the actual achievements when you see past the family stuff? Geschichte (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Based on finding a couple of good sources and one additional lesser source. There is some Google News archive press coverage of this person. Editors fluent in Norwegian will be best able to scan through the news archives for coverage, without the mind-numbing process of Google translation. See, (in Norwegian), which per Google Translate  appears to have substantial coverage in a major newspaper of her. See also  (in Norwegian), with thisGoogle Translation.  See  with Google translation , which is just an anecdote about her and a cat. .There are some false positives, due to an Ibsen play having a character of the same name "Nora." WP:BIO is still satisfied, even when the person's coverage always mentions her famous ancestor and other relatives, as long as there are multiple instances of significant coverage of her in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably notable as a creative professional who's played an important role in major productions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's my sense (through translation) that there's enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, what's harder to tell is just how much of this is a case of NOTINHERITED. Still, given that I"m unsure about that, and that a proper assessment would probably require more context than I have, and given the dangers of systemic bias, a keep seems a sensible result.  --j⚛e deckertalk 03:20, 4 July 2012 (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.