Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mor Sæther

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout 23:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mor Sæther

Mor Sæther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

• No sources, also does not meet notability requirements. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - agree there are no sources at the moment but WP:BEFORE probably applies here as this looks to be a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem:

• This book has a section on the subject in Chapter 2 (though Google Books is not letting me link directly to the pages in question)
• This document from local county archives is about the subject almost entirely (in Swedish).
• This is from the "Norwegian Encyclopaedia" though I wouldn't know enough about the source to arbitrarily proclaim it "reliable".

On balance, I would be inclined to think the subject probably does (perhaps just) meet notability guidelines, though I agree the article could do with some work. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - the source Fylke commune archive (Norwegian, not Swedish, actually) is certainly reliable, and it provides both a history and the text of the poem by Henrik Wergeland about Mor Sæther, so I guess that's 2 sources we can rely on. Store Norske Leksikon ("Great Norwegian Dictionary") seems to be also a good and serious source; it is actually the short version, as there's an Utdypning (further...) which names additional sources:
  • K. Haugholt: “Mor Sæther”, i St. Hallvard 1958, s. 270–287
  • O. Bø: Folkemedisin og lærd medisin, 1973
  • P. Holck: Norsk folkemedisin, 1996

as well as mentioning the use of parish archives and identifying portraits (a lithograph by Gottlief Friedrich Fehr on page 181 of Holck's book). So I think we have more than enough to clear WP:GNG and indeed we should be able to make a really nice article out of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - and thank you for picking up my language mistake - not sure how I managed to do that given the subject. Ha ha. Stalwart111 (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done for locating the key sources. I've cleaned up the article a bit. Someone needs to get hold of the books and add some page refs but it'll do for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - per the significant mentions of the subject in the sources highlighted above. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - It needs to be developed, but that it in line with the policy of Wikipedia, were articles are worked on all the time - and the subject are notable, as she is the perhaps most well known within her category in Norwegian history--Aciram (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep, although needs cleanup, translation etc. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Now has multiple references to reliable sources; the Store Norske Leksikon alone usually indicates notability, and she has been discussed in several works besides being the subject of a notable literary reference. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2012 (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.