Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Gullberg

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Gullberg[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability, the only source is a blog and I can't find anything in a Google search that would allow it to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Judging by the article creator's username and editing history it may be a WP:Vanity page. Basement12 (T.C) 09:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely this is a vanity page, as is the Swedish wikipedia page with two appropriately named SPAs at different times. However I'm not sure he's not notable. He is quoted as an expert in textbooks and in the national daily Svenska Dagbladet, has written numerous articles for the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter, and Pressen.se claims to have found 100 sources discussing Gullberg, though not all are about this particular sociologist. He's also discussed in NyTeknik concerning traffic problems. I'd say he was probably notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Basement12 (T.C) 13:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per mentions in sources.BabbaQ (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is covered in multiple reliable sources and his publications are also noteworthy. Meatsgains (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain for now so I'm asking subject expert DGG for his analysis for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Swedish academic author of several books, with a straight descriptive non-promotional article in the Swedish WP. I have enough experience with the fr and de WPs that if a person from those language areas were covered there in an unchallenged article, I would almost unquestionably accept it. (There are some WPs where I am considerably more dubious, such as es and ru). I'm unfamiliar with the sv. It's clear he or someone close to him wrote the article in the svWP, but I accept Chiswick Chap's analysis. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 4 June 2016 (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.