Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Tandberg

Add links
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tandberg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Frank Tandberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, WP:CRIME and WP:AUTHOR Star Garnet (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A pimp who shot a more famous criminal in self-defense would not have their own article under almost any circumstances. His books appear to have minimal holdings, even in Norway, and have very minimal reviews. While Dagbladet dubbed him a 'well-known criminial author,' that appears to be a case of tabloid journalism. The same tabloid listed one of his books to be one of Norway's top crime novels, but I can find nothing to corroborate that. Star Garnet (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find this guy mentioned in any English language sources. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG and NAUTHOR. NickCT's claim that only English sources are usable, is preposterous. The same goes for the belief that Goodreads is a usable source for reviews of 25 year old non-English works. Norway has no tabloid newspapers if by tabloid is meant WP:UNRELIABLESOURCEs like The Sun and Daily Mail. Geschichte (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the English sources point is ridiculous. I included Goodreads to show that the work is not clearly notable (as opposed to clearly not notable). Star Garnet (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • While it's perfectly fine to look for reviews there, Norwegian releases tend to be quite widely reviewed in Norway, and it's easier to ask on my talkpage if it's desirable to add more reviews. For starters, I added nine reviews of his debut. Geschichte (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What sort of database do you use to find these reviews? I'm sure they're real; I'm just curious. Star Garnet (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll also note that while it clearly passes the bar of receiving independent reviews, I am unsure of the claim that his work is significant or well-known, the other half of WP:AUTHOR #3. Star Garnet (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Geschichte and Star Garnet: - Preposterous? In the sense that you think he is mentioned in English language sources, or in the sense that that's not a rationale for deleting? So I take it you guys are relying on the "work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work" part of WP:AUTHOR? Having a reviewed book only counts if the book itself is already notable. How do you know the book itself is notable? It doesn't have its own WP page... NickCT (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nick CT, it's not relevant whether he is mentioned in English-language sources, or French, or Swahili, because he has several dozen, maybe over a hundred references in some language. Not having a Wikipedia page is also not relevant, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and "Having a reviewed book only counts if the book itself is already notable" does not make sense at all. Reviews of Tandberg's first book started being printed on the day of release. How would it be notable before being reviewed then? And can you name one single AFD where this argument has been given weight in the discussion? Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's spelled out clearly in WP:AUTHOR. You misinterpret NickCT's phrase. Having reviews only matters if the work is "significant or well-known." It didn't have to achieve that status before it was reviewed. To date, the strongest indicator of his work being "significant or well-known" is that a singular writer or editorial team named a book as part of a fairly large group of a subgenre. Had he won a Riverton Prize, that would likely suffice, but he did not. I can't seem to find if he was a nominee. This would of course be irrelevant if he passed GNG, which is not sitisfied by book reviews and a handful of minor crime/complaints to authorities news items. Star Garnet (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • A work becomes well known by being reviewed in every major news outlet as soon as it hits the shelves! Of course, there is also tens of articles covering the release from a news standpoint. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • That doesn't come remotely close to qualifying. Maybe one in 100 books that gets that many reviews becomes "significant or well-known." Probably closer to 1/1000. Star Garnet (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have no idea what you are referring to whatsoever. WP:SIGCOV is WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • I hadn't looked at WP:NBOOK in a little while, and it is incredible how low that drops the bar for notability. If that misconstruction of SIGCOV was applied across the board, I could easily source articles for 20+ tiny restaurants in my neighborhood, 12+ relatives, and 80%+ of small-town mayors across the US dating back 170+ years. But I guess others are happy to make WP's coverage of books indiscriminate. While I assume you took care to filter out the many self-promotional/interview reviews I encountered on nb.no, the only substantive pieces of info I encountered in 20+ articles mentioning Nattens joker were that it's dark and had disappointing sales. Star Garnet (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Geschichte and Star Garnet: - re "low ... bar" - I gotta concur with that. If you look at "two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", does that mean a book needs merely two reviews to be considered notable? Little ludicrous if you ask me. Anyways... this whole thing strikes me as an example of why we need some kind of Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) policy. This guy may have achieved some level of notability inside Norway, but it's clear he hasn't achieved global notability. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sustained coverage of this gentleman in the news, and some reviews for his work, as well as his book getting in a top 25 list - taking into account there is not much in English as he is from Norway, passes wp:GNG and probably NAUTHOR. I also note there is already an article on him in the Norwegian language wiki, who certainly have a better ability to judge the Norwegian language RS than we do. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inclusion on another wiki is emphatically not a reason to keep on the English wiki. Wikis have different notability and enforcement standards (WP:OTHERLANGS). Norwegian's GNG equivalent is much more lax, and their recently written author criteria allows for the inclusion of any non-self-published author. Star Garnet (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, yes I know its not emphatically a reason, but it's generally something to take into consideration (In my opinion). I know there are differences in criteria, but yes allowing any non self published author is *quite* different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)— 67.168.136.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, a crime novelist who published multiple books is keep worthy. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, Goldenboot has a tendency to do this [1] and [2] and [3]. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Tandberg&oldid=1072343134"