Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Bergkvist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linda Bergkvist[edit]
- Linda Bergkvist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has not been proven notable, outside sources have not been provided. Due to non-notability of the subject and the apparent inability to give the article any real content, I feel a deletion is in order. 67.184.164.200 (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've completed the nomination on behalf of 67.184.164.200 (talk · contribs). I have no opinion on the worth or the unworth of the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete - Relevant sources are not either not independent or fansites and forums. Fails WP:ARTIST. Fæ (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: There are sufficient claims of notability to retain.[1], [2]. The spanish version was prodded and then deprodded a few years back after sources were added.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gets 5 gnews hits [3] but not really indepth significant coverage. 13:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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.