Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola Schubert


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ola Schubert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In the 13 years of this article, it's only amassed 3 sources, and seems to fail WP:BASIC. No additional sources have been added since the BLP sources template was added nearly 8 years ago. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. On thing to note is that this article had 5K trimmed off it by an IP a week or so ago. that said, I think Schubert likely meets GNG, as I see some evidence of success and coverage (the "Masters of Flash Book, a film at Sundance) in the past. He is actually getting huge media coverage over the past week or so in Sweden for having sued and lost over his claimed ownership of the IP (as in intellectual property) of something called the babblers or Bablarna (maybe) in Swedish. I added five or six refs to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Some coverage, but mainly about the court case. Most of the nominator's arguments are irrelevant to notability, which is based on the existence of coverage, not how many sources are cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2019 (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.