Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Ernst Nilson

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. Tone 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Ernst Nilson[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)

Borderline, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. Doesn't meet WP:BIO - he went on many expeditions and wrote one book, but none of that makes notability. I have to admit ignorance when it comes to how significant the mentioned Swedish Church medal and Royal Orden are - they are the only signs this may be notable. There is some coverage, including in a national newspaper, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an explorer or a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Publications section is within WP:GNG. Work within WP:GNG. This article needs a clean up and additional sourced perhaps. But notable.BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BabbaQ. Jusdafax (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes would be much more heavily weighted if they pointed to specific instances of coverage in independent sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an elected Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and thereby passes WP:NACADEMIC#3. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no need to repeat the supporting rationales, but I would say that when the nominator states that they can't evaluate claims of notability, and can't be bothered to expend the effort to do the research required, the AFD should be summarily closed and nominator trouted and cautioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I in no way said I 'can't evaluate claims of notability, and can't be bothered to do the research required.' I was making sure to emphasise not only my opinion and conclusion but also my shortcomings in terms of knowledge on this topic, as I am not trying to 'win' but to get an honest and fair consensus. Please assume good faith in other editors. It isn't easy to work through entries in CAT:NN, especially those more than 11 years old, as they are often not simple, hence many people passing them over, as they don't want to risk taking them to AfD, and then being attacked for it. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop whining. You didn't do anything remotely resembling a minimally adequate WP:BEFORE search. If you had even taken a first step t, say, evaluate the notability of the "Royal Orden" by clicking through to its LINKED wikipage, you'd have learned that the "Amarante" order was abolished in 1656, and that Nilson couldn't possibly have been a member. Obviously should have been removed from the article. The ru-wiki article is more extensive and includes, inter alia, the claim that the subject was cover-featured on Time magazine. A simple image search verifies this, although it was a scholastic edition (which typically features simplified content drawn from the main publication). A rather major sign of notability. Even the basic Google search turns up a lot of substantive coverage, including Financial Times, Wired, the New York Times, and NBC News (a Dateline feature, not merely a news story).

Face it. You did a piss-poor job here, because your fundamental approach to searching is gravely deficient. Just a cursory review of the sources cited in the article is nowhere near what WP:BEFORE calls for. What you are doing with nominations like this damages Wikipedia, both by jeopardizing worthwhile content and by causing other editors to waste disproportionate quantities of time cleaning up the messes you create rather than more productive activity. And falsely complaining that you're not being accorded good faith is utter effing nonsense. This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, pure and simple, and you're way on the wrong side of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - members of National/Royal Academies almost always meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this conversation hinges on his membership in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, has anyone verified that uncited claim? I can't find him in their current membership list. On Swedish Wikipedia, his article doesn't repeat this claim and the full list of academy members does not list him: sv:Lista över ledamöter av Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien. czar 21:22, 26 July 2020 (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.