Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Lorck Eidem


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Lorck Eidem

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. note that the Norwegian article of him lacks references too. limited coverage in gbooks, nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy speedy keep, subject has an entry in a quality paper encyclopedia. Nominator claims that another article in an inferior Wikipedia "lacks references too" - too is not appropriate here, as this article is referenced, to the mentioned paper encyclopedia. Google News, what are you talking about? He died eighteen years ago, and was active 50-60-70 years ago. Notability does not degrade over time. No, this seems like a nomination made in error. Geschichte (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Keep The article is referenced, the sources are reliable and independent. The entry in Store norske leksikon is sufficient. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * .. and I agree with Geschichte, absolutely inappropriate subject for G-News Search. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I added more sources, although that's not strictly necessary. Both his 50th and 75th anniversaries were marked with articles - in two of Norways three largest newspapers. Then there's his obituary, as well as sources I didn't add (on book releases, tidbits about him appearing in radio etc). Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this seems like a nomination made in error, so Speedy keep is my vote. __meco (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be fair to the nominator as I now realize the significant expansion done after the nomination, but my vote stands. __meco (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Closing administrator please note Since this article has been put up for deletion, the extensive references have been added. Okip   02:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep very well referenced article now. Article meets all criteria for notability. Okip  02:36, 7 March 2010 (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.