- 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. When reviewed, sourcing is found to be insufficient. Star Mississippi 15:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Anna Berndtson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded as "Non-notable artist. Content supported only by primary sources and routine/promotional coverage." Prod was removed on the grounds that Chicago Reader is an RS, but the article subject is only mentioned in passing in one sentence. I maintain there is no independent sigcov in RSs to assert notability. Jdcooper (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Sweden. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of references available through Google News: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q="Anna Berndtson" -wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - plenty of references available per Eastmains rationale. WP:GNG also applies.BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep, has references, footnotes, non-orphanability, and is a fine article about an interesting and notable personality. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Huh, maybe I'm missing something? all I can see is promotional (primary) sources from art websites, and articles from reliable sources which are only passing mentions of this artist. Google News search mentioned above is more or less the same, no significant coverage. Jdcooper (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I tried cleaning up this article and adding citations. I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, agreed that SIGCOV is lacking on this person. All the RS in the world wouldn't make a subject notable if none of the sources are independent, secondary, and in-depth. JoelleJay (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment after scouring for any Swedish newspaper articles I could get my hands on I'm convinced it is possible to write something resembling a bio. I'm unfortunately also convinced that all the coverage consists of passing mentions. Apart from two notices in Gotland papers (50-60 words each) there's only one article where she is the actual subject of a news article, from last year in Sydsvenskan at a mere 240 words (not yet added to the wiki-bio). I'll refrain from voting, but unfortunately it looks bleak from where I'm standing. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Although I have to add that there might be more than that in German sources, the "Tall Blondes" are still going strong. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be rather divergent perspectives about the article's sourcing; an analysis of sources would likely help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 06:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. Tried to get something to improve this but no joy. There is no article in an RS on her from anywhere that she visits (i.e. some media SIGCOV as a notable artist). She does get referred to but not so extensively that she would meet NBASIC. Feels like her WP BLP is the main plank in her notability, but should be the other way around. Not sure there is much else to do here. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete I did what I could, for clarity's sake I'm dropping a formal !vote. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Source analysis: much against my better judgement, I've given this a go. It seems the table can only accommodate ten sources, so I've picked out what seem to be the best or most useful. Most of those cited in Swedish with no link I have not been able to find at all, except the two from the Upsala Nya Tidning, both of which are paywalled: however, what I can see doesn't give me much hope that there's a lot waiting there.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Note 1: Svefi.net | 
|
 Seems to be just another business, which has also employed the subject
|
Just a trivial mention that she worked for them: not WP:SIGCOV.
|
✘ No |
| Note 2: Chicago Reader |
|
Possible debateable: sells itself as "Chicago's alternative nonprofit newsroom", but I think good enough as an RS if not as a HQRS.
|
A pretty trivial (one-sentence) mention of one of her performances.
|
✘ No |
| Note 3: Shaw 2014 |
|
Again, not a major newspaper, but I think good enough?
|
Again, a trivial mention of one of her artworks: not SIGCOV.
|
✘ No |
| Note 4: Upsala Nya Tidning |
|
Local news, which isn't great on its own for GNG
|
 Seems to be paywalled, but no sign of her in the headline or obvious subject matter: on balance of probabilities, I'm not optimistic that there's SIGCOV here.
|
✘ No |
| Note 5: Platform Arts Belfast | An advert for one of her shows.
|
Per the above, the source has a vested interest in the subject.
|
|
✘ No |
| Note 6: "I love geniusproblematik" | Not linked, and I can find no trace of this source.
|
|
|
? Unknown |
| Note 17: Vernissage |
|
An interview, so WP:PROMO. The page itself doesn't seem to be much above a blog.
|
|
✘ No |
| Note 11: "Vårlig sockerchock" |
|
Again, not exactly a major academic source, but seems to be a vaguely respectable publication.
|
Trivial (one-sentence) mention of one of her artworks among many others by other people.
|
✘ No |
| Note 18: Bergman center | Advert for one of her shows.
|
As above: clear COI.
|
|
✘ No |
| Note 18: Tagesspiegel |
|
|
This one is probably the best source cited: it reviews in detail a festival in which she took part. However, for WP:NCREATIVE, we'd need multiple reviews of that festival, and I'm not convinced that a whole festival's programme really counts as a single "creative work", so this still isn't enough to show notability.
|
✘ No |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
- Overall, there seems to be a systematic pattern of using sources which only mention that she appeared, exhibited, or performed in a particular place, which do not provide WP:SIGCOV. The only sources which do give more than a trivial mention are quite clearly promotional, either advertising her work or straightforwardly connected with that purpose. A major problem is that most of the Swedish news sources don't appear easily tracked down; it might be that some of those would change the equation, but equally I currently have nothing to vouch that they actually exist. I don't think WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE are met here, unfortunately.UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unless they are fairly recent, Swedish newspaper articles are typically accessible only in print or through a couple of archives, like the digital archive of the National Library of Sweden (accessible at the National Library or at a limited number of other Swedish universities – Lund University has one (1) computer with access, for example) or w:sv:Mediearkivet. Doing a source review without these accesses will be confusing – we can't link to the archived material and they won't be available online, so that you get no hits is unsurprising.
- However, the user adding them Draken Bowser, has left a delete !vote above, ultimately finding their own attempts to save the article insufficient. /Julle (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. SPA-translated, but the real problem is that there's no assertion of notability in the lede and the content of the article does not suggest any such compelling claim. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete source analysis proves WP:BIO not met. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per the source analysis provided. Thanks! The person who loves reading (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Per the source analysis by UndercoverClassicist, and my own efforts (earlier above), I can't see the refs for her to make GNG, and no new refs have been presented. As it stands, Wikipedia is the main plank in her notability. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2023 (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.