Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ove von Spaeth (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There are valid sourcing concerns, but there also appears to be consensus that those concerns have been addressed, at least as far as being BLP sufficient. While there are concerns about improving the article, there is a consensus that the subject is notable and issues can be addressed editorially. Star  Mississippi  17:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ove von Spaeth
AfDs for this article:


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

Apparently recreated after the first deletion. All of the references are simply works by the author; I can't find any reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as WP:G4. If it does not qualify, my !vote would be a garden-variety Delete based on this nom and previous discussion. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fit G4, since the current version was started from scratch, rather than being reposted. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm the major contributor to this article. I don't understand why you can't find reliable sources. A lot of the sources are referenced from major Danish printed newspapers. Jyllands-Posten, Kristeligt Dagblad Berlingske Tidende ect. I know it can be hard to find the articles, since we talk about print media from the early 2000. but infomedia.dk can help you (though it is behind a paywall) aza (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm leaning keep, since I can confirm that the news outlets mentioned by Aza are reliable. If they indeed covered Spaeth's work, the article topic is viable. However, it
 * 1) ditch the title "independent scholar"
 * 2) chuck out all primary sources (use it to make a Selected bibliography section instead).
 * 3) rewrite to focus on the reception. What do they write about Spaeth? No anonymous critics please, state the outlet they wrote for and how they assessed his work. Summarize in the lead which one of his books caused a media ruckus.
 * 4) also focus on sources that are about Ove von Spaeth. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Aza, do you have a reaction? Geschichte (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep More than enough sources for a keep. Not sure what is going on with the request for deletion. It could stand some work but I see nothing here to warrant anything drastic.Super (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep. Suffiently reviewed in mainstream media at the time, assuming good faith toward offline sources. Geschichte (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - adequately sourced. Ingratis (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Geschichte, it sounds reasonable, when I started the article back in the day I had full access to the infomedia database through my university, I don't have that anymore, so it would be a hard task for me to rewrite, try taking a look at the early version I made and see if it is more in line with Wikipedia's standards. It seems the deletion request originates from some annoyance over edits made by IP 176.23.240.36 aza (talk)


 * 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.