Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folke Rydén

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. MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folke Rydén[edit]

WP:N and/or WP:V - see below, if interested, for my further expounding, written as well as I can make the points needed to be made for a full understanding of why it may be correct to delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilEikS (talk • contribs) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC) It was NOT MY INTENTION to leave this comment unsigned. I thought I put in: EmilEikS (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Renominating to fix page Sting Buzz Me... 01:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I removed extra comments when I renominated, which may be found here.--Sting Buzz Me... 01:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folke Rydén probably meets criteria for notability on English wikipedia, but this article does not establish that with references. Maybe nothing else is written in English about Rydén, but external verification can also be by sources written in Swedish (WP:CSB#Biographies). Criticism of Rydén's perceived biases can also be mentioned in the article, if there is a reliable source. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC) (copied in from article discussion page by EmilEikS (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Desperately needs sources, but AFIK that is not a reason to delete the article. Garion96 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News searches (past month and archive) show that the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Some of this is in English, but Swedish sources are just as valid for establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2008 (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.