Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish Forn Sed Assembly


 * 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. --Allen3 talk 12:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedish Forn Sed Assembly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable organization, judging from the paucity of hits in Google Books and News (under the new and the old name). Article itself is unsourced. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Neopaganism in Scandinavia, where most of the information in the stub is already also located. Lady  of  Shalott  04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know redirects are cheap (I read that somewhere on Wikipedia), but why a redirect for a term with so little currency? While dinosaurs are dying to be turned into oil to provide the energy for Wikipedia's server to preserve the information? Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, is this is our first quarrel? ♥ Drmies (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  04:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problem was that an editor had changed the spelling of the organization's original name from Asatrosamfund to the incorrect Asatrusamfund. And it only changed its name in mid-2010. It's one of the most frequently mentioned Scandinavian heathen groups; lots of passing mentions in the emerging scholarly field of the study of neopaganism, and I hope to find online some of the newspaper coverage of the blót at Gamla Uppsala, which made a splash. In addition I discovered it was the primary subject of an academic monograph published in 2000 (Asatro i tiden), and there is a multi-page segment in another academic book (Hedendomen i historiens spegel, published in 2005, reissued 2009). I have not yet added the latter to the article or made the newspaper search, but I've fleshed out the article with references including a review of the 2000 monograph. At this point it clearly demonstrates notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Noting that I did add the coverage in the second book I referred to above, and that I've now added references to three Swedish newspapers, including an external link to an interview with a member about modern Ásatrú. The article is now pretty full of references to independent and reliable sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE Nothing I ever seen in the sources listed, nor the newspaper articles listed seems to support statements that this very obscure organisation should be able to support its 300 members claim to date. The information is very spurious at best, and very clearly, contributor "Ylvadottir" could well be on of its very few remaining members. At this point intime, there is nothing that suggests notability, and all relevant facts can easily be found on the "neopaganism in Scandinavia" page

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your feedback. Its membership has apparently fluctuated a lot, and I didn't find a source on that any more recent than 2009. But it's been covered in numerous reliable sources, which is our criterion for notability. Did you look at the sources I added? Perhaps you are unaware that non-English-language sources are acceptable? Do you require me to translate any key sentences that I did not translate? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  01:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and note that AdamDavid72 seems to be a single purpose account dedicated to this AFD. See contributions. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I heard about this group longtime back, definately notable. Do also note that notability is not limited by time. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 22 February 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.