Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Axel Collett
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 no consensus. Secret account 04:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Axel Collett (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)
Unexplained contested PROD. PROD reasoning was: " Fails WP:GNG. Lack of coverage. Only potential notability is derived from the company, and can't be inherited." Ducknish (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Included in Merkantilt biografisk leksikon (encyclopedia). Msbmt (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that encyclopedia was a highly specific document relevant only to that time period. Is it, as a sole source, indicative of lasting notability? And within the encyclopedia, is it only referring to his importance with relation to his company? Ducknish (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki is not paper. Msbmt (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from that policy, "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.", meaning that the fact that it is electronic doesn't itself justify the inclusion of non-notable persons. Ducknish (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was one of the around 5 largest timber merchants and one of the largest private land owners in Norway in his lifetime. Msbmt (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His company "was and is one of the largest private land owners of Norway". His company "built Salsbruket Tresliperi, a sawmill, of which he served as director for some years". These are direct quotes, from the article, showing that all notable actions are those of his company, not of him personally. And it is not the notability of the company that is in dispute here, but his. Ducknish (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He was one of the around 5 largest timber merchants and one of the largest private land owners in Norway in his lifetime. Msbmt (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from that policy, "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars.", meaning that the fact that it is electronic doesn't itself justify the inclusion of non-notable persons. Ducknish (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki is not paper. Msbmt (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that encyclopedia was a highly specific document relevant only to that time period. Is it, as a sole source, indicative of lasting notability? And within the encyclopedia, is it only referring to his importance with relation to his company? Ducknish (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was a major person in Norway in his time period. He clearly was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no evidence proffered that the subject passes the GNG. As the Keep proponents above no doubt know (or SHOULD know), notability is not inherited, and you cannot just assert that someone was a "major person in Norway," you have to prove it. Where is that proof? We're not talking someone active four hundred years ago; this is a fellow who should have citations in modern media. Where are they? Ravenswing 03:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, and since all modern references are about the company, not him, it means that he's missing that coverage to show notability. Ducknish (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our notability guidelines have no bias towards modern sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they don't, but that's not the point. The point is that since there are so very many more modern sources available than for subjects of centuries ago, it's all the more damning when sources which satisfy the GNG don't turn up for such a subject. Ravenswing 02:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our notability guidelines have no bias towards modern sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this person deserves the benefit of the doubt since the debate shows it's obviously close one way or the other. Can't we keep the page in, then review it in a while?Sophiahounslow (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, possibly to be merged later. If this isn't kept as an article, it may at least be merged either to Collett family or the article on the company. --Hegvald (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2013 (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.