Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Jacob Hammarsköld

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jacob Hammarsköld[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)

This is a tough one. The article has a truckload of sources, but looking at them more closely, they appear to be in many cases passing mentions (e.g. this is the only mention of him in a book where I expected his exploits to be more fully documented, and in "The Swedish Heritage in America" by kastrup he also only gets one line: "Her son, Carl Jacob Hammarskold, who had become his father's business partner, hastened to join the Confederate forces, but in 1862 he had to resign because of injuries."), primary sources, or sources of very limited reliability and distribution (like specialized genealogical publications). Much of the article is about his family, not about him.

All in all, this is a well written article, but about an ultimately non notable figure. Searching for other sources gave no results, there seem to be no independent, reliable sources who have spent more than one or two lines on him. Fram (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. In my zeal, I have not considered the notability of the object. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable per sources. WP:GNG. This is an historoc article. Its not like we can expect "recent coverage" or coverage that are expected of a subject in 2019.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources specifically are reliable and independent, and give indepth attention to the subject? 15:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- As an example, the first source in the "cited literature", Carpenter, doesn't have any information about the subject[1]. The second source, Cole, again doesn't even mention the article subject[2]. The third one, Crenshaw, doesn't mention the article subject[3]. So please, @BabbaQ:, indicate which sources made you go for your "clearly notable per sources, WP:GNG" opinion, as I don't see it. Fram (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think more research is warranted on the subject before tossing it out. His death reported in an American newspaper is scant, but mentions at the bottom that he was knighted by Oscar II of Sweden. But it doesn't say what for. The knighthood is also in the infobox, with no mention of what it was for. It is perhaps worth it to keep the article, to be researched by someone with the access to Swedish sourcing. WT:WikiProject Sweden seems to be active and might be helpful. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment − Hammarsköld was not knighted (as in made a nobleman) by Oscar II, he was mad a knight (which is the lowest level) of one of Sweden's state orders (the Hammasköld family as such, however, had been a noble one ever since 1610). /FredrikT (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- About that knighthood - it was an RVO which I don't think is necessarily grounds for notability. I'm not commenting on notability right now; I think he is probably notable but I'll need to look at the sources. --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per BabbaQ and — Maile . Mosaicberry (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solidly sourcing, can be usefully linked from such pages as his regiment, Coopersville Iron Works and from an article on Spring Hill Forge that probablby needs to be written - a Confederate iron works is presumably notable, as we all remember, the South lost the war in part because it had so few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Lots of useful historical information from reliable sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very fair nomination and it is borderline (particularly after the comments above by FredrikT). However, when +100-year old charachters are still getting chronicled in multiple independent quality sources, then then WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER nudges a borderline to a Keep for me. Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2019 (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.