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 SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ekman (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)

Purely promotional and nothing notable. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple significant mentions in WP:RS. Here are some:[1] [2] [3] [4]. [5]. It's overly promotional and the English needs work, but that's fixable and quality problems like that have never been a valid reason for deletion. Sjö (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - or indeed speedy keep (Zackmann08, I see where you're coming from, but this could perhaps be withdrawn). He is indubitably fully notable, despite the appalling state of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Speedy keep (Zackmann08, He is a notable as many references are added, I tried to fix some issues. You can also fix English or styling issues, instead of nominating it for deletion remove the specific points which looks like a promotional contents. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers. Agony77 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and close. This one covers WP:GNG per good references.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Zackmann08 (talk · contribs), a minute before nominating this for deletion, you removed a long list of his productions for a large number of national ballets and other leading dance companies. Whether you like the way the list looked or not, it should have given you a clue; you can't have a resumé like that and not be notable as a choreographer. --Hegvald (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Speedy keep. Someone remove the deletion tag. Now it must be closed. He is notable and we have seen there are enough references to prove the validity of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alina Zahra (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the discussion is open, the deletion notice shouldn't be removed (removal would hide this discussion for anybody looking up Ekman's article), and the discussion will be closed by an administrator in due time. --Hegvald (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2018 (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.