Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustaf-Otto Adelborg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gustaf-Otto Adelborg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a translation of an article on the Swedish Wikipedia. I declined speedy as there is an assertion of significance, but the only reference in both articles appears to be a 1929 encyclopaedia. The encyclopaedia published up to 1955. Is there nothing later, or are there more possible refs? Peridon (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gustaf-Otto Adelborg is mentioned in the the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet particularly in a article entirely devoted to his life and work. According to the article, "Gustaf-Otto Adelborg is nowadays a forgotten author", further it says that, especially, "three of his later works belongs to the most peculiar our literature own". Foremost I would like to inform that an article about Gustaf-Otto Adelborg appears in the National Swedish Encyclopedia (from year 2013), in Sweden called Nationalencyklopedin. Hence no further discussions questioning the relevance of the biography is needed. Links: http://www.svd.se/kultur/understrecket/adelborgs-tystnad-foljdes-av-klarsprak_2489951.svd, http://www.ne.se/lang/gustaf-otto-adelborg --AddyFBG (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Topics appearing in a print encyclopedia are encyclopedic by definition, so we should include them. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Subject isn't supported by enough refs to be notable. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 04:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So the other encyclopedias are wrong to have included this guy? Do we know better than the professionals? Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per nyttend. good refs.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nomination as refs have appeared. Peridon (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Nyttend since the AfD template is there, although I note that the nom was withdrawn. Tomas e (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appreciate the withdrawal, but because Grammarxxx !voted delete it cannot be speedily. Appears some work has been done to the refs to make it meet notability guidelines. Mkdwtalk 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.