Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustaf Birger Anders Holm

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Birger Anders Holm[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No evidence given of notability, in fact no description of why this person may be notable. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a bit brief, but I have added some more information. Holm has an entry in Nationalencyklopedin and is mentioned in at least three other biographical encyclopedias or biographies, as seen in the Further reading section. --bonadea contributions talk 14:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still don't see anything approaching encyclopedic notability. He was chairman of a publishing company (though that part isn't sourced) and he owned a fancy house. I'm sure his mum was proud of him, but he didn't do anything to get in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict, but now I've written this long comments with wikilinks and all so I'll post it even though my point was just made by Edward321 :-)Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that there are individual entries about the man in three different encyclopedias (Svenskt biografiskt handlexikon, Nordisk familjebok and Nationalencyclopedin, the first two being contemporary with Holm and the third being a current work), as well as non-trivial mentions in several other printed works (as seen in the Further Readings section of the article - one of those is a 20-page chapter in a book, devoted entirely to this person) indicate notability? I agree that it doesn't seem particularly relevant to our lives today who was the boss of one of the largest publishing houses in Sweden 100 years ago, but that's not really the issue, is it. --bonadea contributions talk 18:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If he's notable enough for print encyclopedias, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks bonadea! I didn't even notice those other encyclopedias. This should be more than enough sources to establish notability. Melchoir (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - included in several printed encyclopedias, in essence all standard sources for Swedish biographical information. Tomas e (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has now successfully established the notability of the subject. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question, can someone provide translations of the relevant sections of the cited sources? Given that this is the English Wikipedia, these sources are not readily accessible to many of us. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are relatively short biographical articles with the type of information you would expect in such. If you don't read Swedish, I don't see why you would trust the translation of the original sources any more than the rephrasing of the same information in the Wikipedia article. You can use Google Translate to get the gist of the sources available on the web, this one and this one (there is OCR text on the pages if you scroll down to below the facsimile). The Nationalencyklopedin article is very short and still in copyright, which makes translating it pointless from a source-reviewing point-of-view and a bad idea from a copyright point-of-view. --Hegvald (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but according to WP:NONENG it is reasonable to ask for translations of non-english sources used as references in articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2010 (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.