Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrik Palmgren

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 delete. Michig (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Palmgren[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)

Stumbled upon this and the page's content isn't any indicative of the subject's notability. We don't give random white supremacist YouTubers a platform here. If merging to a larger related article isn't viable, this article should be deleted. Pinging page creator. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as proposer Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like an advertisement for the subject's videos. Fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There are mentions in reliable sources, but not significant, and I can't see that he meets WP:BIO in any way. Sjö (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. The coverage is reliable but not significant. Tsumikiria: just FYI, per WP:AFDLIST it's generally considered that the nominator, unless otherwise stated, supports the deletion so adding a delete !vote isn't necessary. SITH (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that there's no in-depth reliably-sourced coverage of this person, just fleeting mentions within a few articles. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The key to passing our notability criteria is not just having his name get mentioned in reliable source coverage — he has to be an actual subject of a source, not just a person whose existence gets glancingly namechecked in a source whose core subject is somebody else, before that source supports his notability. But the sources here are all of the latter type, not the former, and nothing claimed in the article is "inherently" notable enough to earn him the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 1 January 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.