Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique Wadsted

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. czar 07:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Wadsted[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed as part of effort to review the longest wp:notability tagged articles (In this case has been tagged for over 11 years. No GNG suitable coverage of her in the listed references plus I was unable to find any in a search, not even medium length coverage of her. Appears that she has done a lot of corporate legal work, including on some larger and higher profile cases. North8000 (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note below that my opinion is "Keep" but I am not withdrawing the AFD. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just cleaned up the refs and tbh I'm surprised it remained tagged this long. I think the article speaks for itself: she's apparently a go-to lawyer in a bunch of high-profile cases, often dealing with digital media and copyright. The article in svwiki is longer but appears worse-sourced. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with AleatoryPonderings. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before I nominated, I was thinking that if there was a SNG she would meet it. But I would have no guideline basis for removing the tag as I think that then and now it fails wp:GNG. I think with the addition of material by AleatoryPonderings it reinforces my "if there was a SNG" thought. So I'm saying "keep" but am not withdrawing. Without IMO a guideline basis for keep, I think that a real AFD result is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially considered her role and how much she herself was in the spotlight around the Pirate Bay trial. /Julle (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2020 (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.