Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helena Ekblom (2nd nomination)

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. WP:SNOW. This is becoming an avalanche... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Ekblom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, as there are no sources proving notability on the article. There are no Ghits that prove notoriety either. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is very well known as the perhaps most famous of Women preachers in contemporary 19th-century Sweden and in no way obscure in this context. I don't understand what makes her non-notable. The article has several references. This article has already been questioned in a deletion discussion, and the result was to keep. --Aciram (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider your point, but for now, I'm not withdrawing the nomination on the grounds of allowing debate. I will add a request for citations and more content, however. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I have added a little to the article; I noticed that the fact that a novel has been written about her was not in the article here, which it should have been. I thought it already was. --Aciram (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are sources proving notability, and they have been in the article prior to nomination. They just happen to be, not quite surprisingly, in Swedish.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually yes there are sources for this article. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Nominator badly misunderstands our criteria for deletion if they think "no sources proving notability on the article" is one of them. It is not; see WP:ARTN. Furthermore, "no Ghits that prove notoriety either" is also not related to notability. Finally, based on nom's comment above about adding "a request for citations and more content" it appears that they ought to read WP:DINC before making any more such misguided nominations. Oh, also, this article has existed on the Swedish WP since 2005 and they ought to know, right? That is, after all that, KEEP per Ymblanter. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - references proves notability. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just because the large corpus of book sources covering this person are in Swedish, that is no reason to delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources for notability were already in the article. Let me suggest another one, published only the other day: Anders Jarlert, "Helena Sophia Ekblom (Predikare-Lena)", in Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon (online). It even has an English version! Jarlert adds an interesting tidbit: "She is also believed to have been the role model for C.J.L. Almqvist's Amorina, 1822." --Hegvald (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:BIO, does not fail WP:GNG, plenty of sources available, some listed in the article or mentioned here. /Julle (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is already well sourced, more mentioned above, lets all go out and play in the snow. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have a snowball! - In my view the subject is notable, there are a few good sources, and since this is a 19th century published female author, seems to be of some relevance. Prince of Thieves (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2018 (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.