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.
Short circuited prod that still does not answer the underlying problem: Prod reason was Unreferenced Bigraphy of "Known for Painter". Does not appear to pass WP:NARTIST, and without references, we cannot prove SNG or GNG. An editor added a single reference to a Swedish museum listing the museum's holdings for the artist. The editor is also the same one that promoted the content out of AFC/Draft space without a single reference.
Pinging Editors who have previously worked with this page(Legacypac—Calliopejen1—Etothepi—Lee Vilenski)Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this just indicates that other editors have vouched that an entry on this artist appears in Bra Böckers Lexikon, a print encyclopedia. I don't have a copy of the print encyclopedia and therefore cannot personally verify that fact. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, where's the sources and notability proven in order for English Wikipedia to make an independent judgement? Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made an independent judgment based on the number of encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries in which this artist has entries, as well as the fact that 25 of his works are held by their national museum. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the further reading now included at the bottom of the article (all viable references that come from the other Wikipedias that you sneer at). He has been included in many other encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and deserves an entry here. Next time try WP:BEFORE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a fine concept, and how did you apply the ruberic for mainspace suitability BEFORE you promoted it to mainspace? Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked at the other articles and determined this was a notable topic, and therefore applied the ((Promising draft)) tag. User:Legacypac removed the promising draft tag, putting the draft at risk of deletion again, so therefore I confirmed the topic was notable and moved it to mainspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I admitted. I saw a promising draft of a notable subject at risk of deletion, so I moved it to mainspace. This is also after I had been repeatedly asked why I didn't just move articles to mainspace instead of applying the promising draft tag. In any event, this discussion is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. Do you disagree that this artist is notable? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...removed the promising draft tag, putting the draft at risk of deletion again, so therefore I confirmed the topic was notable and moved it to mainspace That's the quintesential definition of a Point violation. If you wanted to save the page, all it took was a single edit before the 6 month timer fell out, but you chose the disruptive and expedient route. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what more to say other than I disagree strenuously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I just added nine sources, which were fairly easy to find. This means Calliopejen1's assessment was entirely correct, and also that WP:BEFORE would have found the same easy basis for notability.104.163.150.200 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a pattern of abuse of AfCH tools by an editor who appears to be trying to make a WP:POINT. It's fine to have a Draft you intend to work on but throwing unsourced drafts into mainspace without any references is not the way to do things. Legacypac (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AFD has nothing to do with whether you like how I am using AfCH tools. Please comment on the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sending a draft to mainspace with no sources knowing it would be AfD'd is problematic behavior. You first interacted with the draft in August 2017 but you only started to add sources when it was rightly taken to AfD and you were threatened with sanctions for moving multiple unsourced drafts to mainspace. Stop doing things backward. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I did not believe that this would be AFD'd. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find several news sources (in Swedish) that I want to add, but I unfortunately don't speak Swedish. I agree with Hasteur that notability guidelines for other Wikis should never be imported to en Wiki, however. Nanophosis (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add the sources and if we can understand them, it might be enough to prove notability, however as I indicated above absent prose backed up by RS that demonstrates clearing the SNG and GNG this page should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add the sources, but I'm afraid the language barrier will prevent me from accurately summarizing the information. I'll drop a few links here in the hope that an editor who speaks Swedish will be able to use them. [1],[2],[3] (behind paywall). P.S. - Expressen has quite a few articles about the artist that come up when searching for news with his name, but I didn't include any of these articles in the links due to the tabloid nature of the source. Nanophosis (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has an attempt at a reference now, but it doesn't actually prove anything because link rot. Until a verfiable source has been provided, we should not have this article. •≈20+π(talk to me!) 19:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Etothepi: Which link is not working for you? There is also an extensive further reading section at the bottom, with multiple links that work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Etothepi: Please have a look at the article again, as nine sources have been added.104.163.150.200 (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: The nationalmuseum.se link in the refs section does not work. I'll reserve judgement on the other links until someone more experienced and with better Swedish checks them out. •≈20+π(talk to me!) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Etothepi: Just a database listing of the museum's holdings of the artist. Using our critical thinking skills, a Swedish "nationalmuseum" having a collection of art by a Sweedish artist seems like a "business as usual" holding rather than a "we need to get this artist's works because he's notable". Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here is a press release the museum put out when the recently acquired an additional painting by this artist. [4] Clearly this artist's works are not ending up in the Nationalmuseum by chance. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Nationalmuseum is equivalent to the National Gallery of Art in the United States. National galleries do not generally hold 25 works by an artist unless that artist is worthy of note. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Calliopejen1: Be that as it may, WP:NARTIST does also specify "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Does he have work held somewhere other than the Nationalmuseum? •≈20+π(talk to me!) 20:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The collection of the Gothenburg Museum of Art includes primarily Western art from the 15th century until today, with an emphasis on Nordic artMuseum's About page Sorry, but focusing on Nordic art isn't really inspiring confidence in Notability, it suggests an indiscriminate collecting of Nordic art. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
?????? This is a totally crazy way to assess the importance of a museum. A museum focusing on Nordic art can't indicate the significance of a Nordic artist? Then can a museum focusing on contemporary art indicate the significance of a contemporary artist? An impressionist museum, an impressionist artist? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A nation/region museum that announces they focus on that nation/region's art suggests a "national" focus and supporting the country's artists. Contemporary art and Impressionist art is a generally accepted category for which there are many museums in many nations/regions. Your equivalence argument is disappointing. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what's disappointing is an AFD nomination that missed the voluminous sources and indications of notability that are now being added to the article.104.163.150.200 (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's analyze those "contributions" to the article:
Bra böckers lexikon: a Swedish encyclopedia. So a single entry in a encyclopedia of at least 30 thousand entries
Vem är det: a sweedish biographical dictionary. Again, a single entry in at least 30 thousand entries
Nordisk familjebok: A nordic family book (encyclopedia). Same issue as illustrated above.
Svenskt biografiskt lexikon: Sweedish biographical dictionary. Again directory listing.
Benezit Dictionary of Artists: an extensive publication of bibliographical information. Also with the directory listing. Can you see why I'm having a problem accepting this? Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." per WP:ANYBIO. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing other language wikipedias is worse than referencing English wikipedias. Other language wikipedias have different standards. I just found out Calliopejeni is an Admin - which makes their POINTy behavior doublely problematic. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. That this artist's works are in the Swedish national museum and the Gothenburg Museum is a clear indication that they will pass WP:NARTIST. In its current state the article is adequately sourced and Calliopejen1's comments above point to many more sources available. This isn't a poll on Calliopejen1's approach to AfC reviewing. – Joe (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why don't people just look for sources rather than argue? I added eight good sources in ten minutes. He's clearly WP:N notable based on sources, and the Paris Salon medal. Having his work in two museums satisfies WP:ARTIST.104.163.150.200 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Even before IP 104 helpfully added nine sources, my !vote still would have been "Keep". First: Notability is a property of a topic, not of an article, so presence/absence of sources is irrelevant for notability concerns, and this topic is clearly notable, regardless of what kind of state the article was in. Second: verifiability does not require the inclusion of sources in an article; it merely requires that it is possible to find them. The article was verifiable before any sources were found, it just didn't have any at that point. Mathglot (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep—and move to close. The effect of this nomination has been the improvement of the article to a level that could not support deletion. As noted above, the notability of the subject did not depend on the immediate inclusion of sources, just the existence of them. The fact that other Wikipedias contain sourced articles on this subject lends credence to the fact that we would be able to locate and use those sources here as well, which is a totally different topic than directly using the articles hosted on other Wikipedias as sources. AfD is a discussion of the merits of the article subject, and not the actions of any one editor, but if it were, then the actions of the editor who promoted this from a draft weren't improper. Imzadi 1979→ 22:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects work is included in the collection of a notable museum with supranational scope and several reference works or tertiary sources. Vexations (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list above doesn't mention his entry in the ULAN - Union List of Artist Names, normally accepted as pretty strong evidence of notability (as is Benezit). A bio in Grove is completely conclusive. Plus the national museum works etc. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even at the outset but especially now this seems obviously to be an individual suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - One of the best known Swedish painters of the late 19th century. /FredrikT (talk) 00:29, 3 June 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.