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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merkantilt biografisk leksikon

[edit]

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

This is an excellently written article about an early Norwegian who's who. However, the article's creator has been unable to find any secondary sources on the topic, making it seem to fail the WP:GNG. All of the article's current references come from the who's who itself, in either its online or digitized form. Since a DYK nom is currently waiting on this one, I thought I'd give it an immediate trial by fire. If anybody sees a reason why this passes the guidelines, I'd be glad to be overturned. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One such reason would be the existence of offline sources. This might give a hint on when it was published -- late July 1935 (the preface in the book itself is dated February 1935). It would be possible to search newspapers like Aftenposten, Morgenposten, Morgenavisen, Morgenbladet, Dagbladet and Sjøfartstidende on microfilm. Geschichte (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the encyclopedia is frequently cited in works listed at the webpages of National Library of Norway. [1] I haven't been able to find much information about it in secondary sources though. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also cited thrice in the latest edition of Norsk biografisk leksikon. --Eisfbnore ^talk 19:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator did adress a very real problem. I have now bought access to Aftenposten archives and added its book review (which was very unfavourable, I might add). The article now has at least one source independent of the subject, maybe two of you count Project Runeberg. And there is ample potential for more -- see the newspapers I mentioned earlier. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte. --Lambiam 23:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aftenposten coverage provided by Geschichte. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:18, 18 June 2011 (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.