Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yngve Kalin


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yngve Kalin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem to have done anything notable. A quick Google search does not turn up anything obvious. The article is totally unsourced. Fails WP:GNG Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied by the article now, and am convinced that it passes WP:GNG. I withdraw the nomination. Thanks to for their work. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep 1) The article is not unsourced, there are 3 links at the bottom. 2) Not done anything notable: he is correctly stated to be the author of the (controversial) Priest's Declaration (against homosexual partnerships) of 2005, as well as a leading traditionalist and chair of a Swedish national church organization. 3) He received coverage in Swedish national newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet as well as church sources. 4) Notability depends on external sources, not on how well or badly an article is documented with such sources. In this case Nom failed even to notice the sources listed in the article, let alone look for others, most of which are in Swedish. The general point is that it is essential before nominating to see whether the topic can be sourced; it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time I nominated the article, there were zero sources. What you refer to as "three sources" are actually external links, mostly associated with the subject itself. I am well aware that sourcing may be available on non-English speaking newspapers but I found nothing in a "quick" (emphasis on "quick") Google search. If the Priest's Declaration was covered widely in Swedish newspapers and commented on by politicians by all means provide such evidence and add it to the article. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left a comment at Wikiproject Sweden regarding this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your admirably civil reply. I have added 11 representative sources (there are more) to the article, but I must emphasize that this is not a necessary part of defending the article, nor of AfD policy in general. Your reply, I am sorry to say, betrays a misunderstanding of the AfD process. External links are indeed sources, and they did to a degree support the claims made in the article; I can confirm that they made finding other sources easy and quick. On foreign sources, English Wikipedia is worldwide and there is no prejudice in favour of sources written in English, though there are some here. Finally, I repeat (in the unlikely event that any other editors who think that "sourced" means "with little numbers already in the article" are reading this) that notability depends on the existence of sources, not whether editors have bothered to add them to an article, or indeed to place them inline as is convenient for everybody. Due diligence is required before going to AfD; this may mean consulting with Swedish speakers to find out whether a subject is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- While this article has a lot of redlinks, it is about a Swedish subject. The Swedish WP has an article on him, which has rather fewer redlinks: our Swedish colleagues seem to think him notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not a clean-up service. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2015 (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.