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 Speedy Keep per WP:KEEP#5: article is presently in Main Page "Did you know...". Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kakan Hermansson

Kakan Hermansson (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)

Media profile that fails WP:GNG. All sources are Swedish, and all sources but one in Swedish language, indicating possible notability in sv.wiki, but not necessarily in en.wiki. Google searches find results only in Swedish language. No indication of notability in the English-speaking world. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - flawed reasoning for deletion. No such mention is made at Wikipedia:Notability. The sources may be in Swedish but the confirm everything mentioned in the article. Also the article seem to pass every single point of the GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I don't doubt that what is said in the article is supported by the sources. But that is not the same thing as she being notable. Based on what you say on WP:Notability, you seem to have it backwards; notability in sv.wiki does not necessarily mean notability in en.wiki. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You talk about notability on English and Swedish wikipedia. And totally disregard the fact that this is a well sourced article. And as Dwpaul points out you have no case when it comes to WP:NOTABILITY. Hermansson is a very known name in Sweden atleast in younger circles and she has been feature don several television shows and radio show. Which she has hosted. At the talk page you claim to have never heard of her, still you have a strong opinion about her not being notable. It is a contradiction. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't compensate a lack of notability with a high (well) number of sources. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your way of viewing notability, then yes. But my arguments as well as Dwpaul are based on guidelines for notability and not a personal opinion. About a person that you by your own words "have never heard of or seen before"...Still you have a strong opinion. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no strong opinions on her. I only respond to your arguments. Try to stick with the issue. But I would have guessed; nobody wants their article deleted. BabbaQ, this may be personal to you, but it isn't to me (neither towards you or Kakan). No matter what you want to believe, it is a good faith nomination. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not worry I dont think you nominated this article in bad faith. I think you are nominating this article based on a flawed view of the guidelines. Or your lack of using the guidelines correctly when placing this article up for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then why do you question my motives with insinuations such as For a person who "never heard of her" before, you seem to be a person with many strong opinions about this particular person. Interesting."? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD is grossly premature. A discussion concerning the subject's notability was just initiated by the nominator on the article's Talk page. This article was just today included at DYK, and the addition of the template at this time seems both unfortunate and perhaps untimely. If this AfD continues (though I would ask it be speedily concluded), I certainly would !vote Keep Speedy Keep; my arguments are detailed on the Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I just initiated the discussion. I also marked the article with {{notability}}, which you reverted soon after (you don't mention that here for some reason). Don't you want more proof of her notability? Maybe in English? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I "want" is not at issue here. This is question of policy and procedure. I reverted your placement of the {{notability}} tag because the GNG, which the tag references, clearly does not require English sources (and explicitly says it does not). Dwpaul ^Talk 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to misunderstand me. Where have I said that notability requires sources in English? I have only said that the lack thereof indicates lack of notability. Also, it's you who have the burden of proof: you have to demonstrate notability. It's not I who have to demonstrate the lack thereof. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no "burden of proof" all our arguments are based on guidelines. Kakan Hermansson is covered and notability confirmed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So, the guidelines confirm she's notable? Oh. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable here in en.wiki is defined very clearly at WP:Notability (and,as another editor has pointed out, at WP:Notability (people) as it pertains specifically to people). I do not see anything there that establishes some limitation by continent or language, and I see a number of things there that disclaim such limitations. If you have some policy to point to, versus your own, thus far unsupported, concepts of "en.notability" versus "sv.notability", please point to it. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Of course notability was established by 14 sources provided no less. The notability tag should have not been even introduced. We must check sources, before adding tags that are not necessary. We editors have translation automated machine tools and not knowing a certain language does not excuse us of putting notability tag without at least reading the provided sources, albeit in roughly translated version which is almost always enough to understand even if not grammatically full-proof. werldwayd (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no such Wikipedia policy that I know of that allows deletion in English Wikipedia space because the subject "indicates possible notability in XX.wiki (say Swedish), but not necessarily in en.wiki. In general if a subject is notable in his/her country, he/she is notable. Period. Take a football player, the best in his country's official professional league, but never mentioned in Sports Illustrated or the sports pages of The New York Times. Or a singer who is number one in his country but has never been mentioned in Billboard or Melody Maker, or an MP in his country's Parliament, but never mention in the London Times or Paris Le Monde or a financier, an influental one in his own country, but never mentioned in Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal. Or else, I can name you tens of thousands of English Wikipedia articles on individuals who have only been mentioned only in their local medias and never in USA or UK, but still merit articles in English Wikipedia. For me, English Wikipedia does not mean and should not mean A US Wikipedia or a UK Wikipedia. It just means a Wikipedia written in English language, meaning a Wikipedia where anybody who wants to check information in English language finds it in English language. Nobody browsing say in Beirut, or Johannesburg, or Rio de Janeiro or in Tokyo should go to Swedish Wikipedia to find a Swedish notable individual and in case he doesn't know Swedish, well tough luck and all the best to him.. I suggest a strong keep for this article. werldwayd (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2014 (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.