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 delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. There isn't a rough consensus to either keep or delete here, she isn't well known, and it appears she has requested deletion. In these cases, policy allows us to be more cautious and honour the wishes of the BLP. That tips this to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson[edit]

Suzanne Olsson (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)

WP:BLP1E of a self-published author, originally started by COI editors. Subject is butting heads with religious people, with obvious results. Resoundingly deleted in 2008. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - given most of the citations date from after 2008, the result of a discussion of notability at that time may not reflect the current situation. The content has also changed appreciably since it was started by COI editor(s), enough so that the subject and her proxies have tried repeatedly to white-wash and/or blank the article (of which this [1] is typical in its insistence that she should be allowed to 'lock in' her own text, or else the page should be deleted), so I am not sure that the fact that it was started by COI editors means anything anymore. Anyhow, there have been two more recent AfDs (and two MfDs) on this subject's BLPs that reflect a broader diversity of opinion: Agricolae (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson 2006, keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Olsson (2nd nomination) 2008, resounding delete

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SuzanneOlsson/sandbox 2008, resounding keep

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson 2013, keep

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne M. Olsson 2013, delete

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson 2014, resounding keep

Let me add to this comment that "Subject is butting heads with religious people, with obvious results", which I take to be derived from the claims in the latest BLP Noticeboard demand for the page to be deleted, is at best an over-simplification. Many of the editors with whom she and her proxies have butted heads are anti-fringe skeptics, not (or at least not only) 'religious people'. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editing error in the list above was later corrected. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. Agricolae (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am tending, slightly, towards keep. The coverage in the Indian press is significant but I can see how BLP1E could be argued if that is all there is. I am tending away from 1E because of ongoing coverage of her theories as well as a few citations in other works. Whether that coverage is sufficient to overcome the tendency to presume lack of notability for self-published authors is where the balance lies for me. As the article stands and after the many deletion discussions, I do not think that 'started by a COI editor' has bearing on this AfD. Jbh ^Talk 15:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: It has been suggested that this is a BLP1E, a biography of a living person known only for one event. What is the event? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her self-published book, Jesus in Kashmir, The Lost Tomb, documented her research into the belief that the Roza Bal shrine in Srinagar, Kashmir, contains the remains of Jesus" --Orange Mike | Talk 01:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it is stating the obvious, but a book is not an event. It also appears that she has written three books, according to the article. It doesn't really matter whether her books are self-published or not. What matters is whether they, and she, are notable or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. The accusation of WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply, since there is no particular event involved. There is no WP:BLP1T policy saying we don't care about people known for only one theory, and many of the most notable people in the world are only known for promoting one theory. It doesn't matter whether her works are self-published or not and doesn't matter whether her theory is a fringe theory or not; what matters is whether she and her works are notable or not. There are even some people who are clearly considered notable for only self-publishing work that is generally regarded as random nonsense, and that doesn't stop an article about such a person from becoming a "Featured article". There is coverage supporting notability, cited in the article by The Times of India, India Today, UCA News, Global Press Journal, New Straits Times, and Dawn. None of those seem to be fringe or self-published sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • A merge may be a good approach. The theory she is notable for promoting is not unique to her – indeed, it is the primary source of notability for the Roza Bal shrine and has been promoted by people far more notable than her (e.g., Mirza Ghulam Ahmad more than a century ago). Perhaps she should be identified in the Roza Bal article as one of the people who have promoted that theory. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I forget how I stumbled across this topic; perhaps it was via WP:SPI. Anyway, I found that a page had been deleted under WP:G5, about a topic which I found to be of encyclopedic value, and for which there was sufficient independent coverage in multiple reliable sources (Times of India, Dawn, New Straits Times etc) to establish notability. I therefore re-created a version of the article, which was promptly welcomed on the talk page as an improvement. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • DELETE with Comment Fayenatic, when did you become the article creator? I seem to have missed something. Although your contributions are among the best, they never remained long, more edit wars ensued. Olsson mentioned several times that her grandchildren created the very first page years ago on Wikipedia. Then, as mentioned above, she butted heads or offended several religions including Christians, Muslims, and Hindus. The page has been ruthlessly edited through the years and bears no resemblance to the original contents. If the page is kept, the edit wars will continue. Nothing will improve, the biography will continue to lack neutrality (such as referring to it as a 'fringe' topic and only publishing quotes in support of those views) deleting any mention of her Red Cross/Red Crescent service in the region in the midst of the Taliban War, and more. These deletion decisions will be raised again. And again. Therefore I strongly support 'delete' the page. Groshnik Sockpuppet blocked.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Fayenatic became the creator of the page in its current iteration on 11 August 2014, as is evident from the page's history. There is a long history here. The original page that Olsson claims was created by her grandchildren was deleted in 2008. User:SuzanneOlsson then created the page Suzanne M. Olsson in 2013, only to have it deleted shortly thereafter. Then Suzanne Marie Olsson was created by User:Granada2000, subsequently found to be a sock puppet of an account that was later found to be a sock puppet of SuzanneOlsson. The 2014 AfD for Suzanne Marie Olsson resulted in Keep, but then the page got deleted anyhow because it had been created by a sock puppet (Speedy deletion criteria G5). Fayenatic then resurrected the page and thus, at least nominally, is the 'creator' of its current incarnation, though with the deleted version inaccessible it is unclear how Fayenatic's version differed from the prior deleted version. Much of this arcane history is of little relevance to the current discussion, whether Suzanne Olsson is notable, and particularly, whether she is broadly notable or only noteworthy for a single event, as suggested in the nom. One thing does arise out of the history: Suzanne Olsson at least once and apparently twice created a page for herself. She obviously thinks she is notable, she just doesn't like the content that arises from others editing the page. Agricolae (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:RS to improve the article, bring them. The article has been peaceful since the latest socking, and history suggest that if deleted Olsson will recreate it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Groshnik has come from nowhere to request a blanking? Given the amount of sock-history with this article and previous AfD, we need to do a sock-check on this AfD also In ictu oculi (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument made on BLPN is strikingly similar to those previously made by socks and COI, proxies of Olsson, with its demand that she should be able to provide the text and then the article should be frozen to prevent anything negative from being added, or failing that, deleted. We have seen that exact either/or several times before. Agricolae (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources support an article on the tomb claim, not the person. TheValeyard (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TheValeyard and per WP:INHERITED. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unfortunately passes WP:NAUTHOR in Gbooks, the fact that this is a beyond the fringe author doesn't affect the general pop notability, although really the article should have a reception paragraph to make it clear that this entire set of theories is gullible westerners buying into Ahmaddiya muslim misreading of earlier muslim adaptations of the life of Buddha to the grave of a muslim saint as the grave of Jesus. She's not the only fringe western author pushing the Ahmaddiya story, and the others like Holger Kersten have articles, since they also, regrettably, also pass WP:NAUTHOR. That's just life unfortunately fringe authors can collect notability too, if not collect more notability than qualified academics. The commented about WP:INHERITED is incorrect by the way, of the various western fans of this she's probably acquired more "fame" than the others. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 first books in your gbooks link are selfpublished, how does it support NAUTHOR? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if every one of those several 100 Gbooks isn't self-published, it's very rare for serious publishers to wade into the open cistern of populist fringe on this kind of subject, same as Mary Magdalene-Da Vinci-Lost Grail fringe. Bu that doesn't prevent those books having disproportionate popular reach. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several 100? I see 3 pages, maybe it´s a EU-data-law thing. And the first page already has a swedish librarian by the same name. This [2] gbook-search may be more on point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep While the person is not specifically notable as an author, the fact is that the shrine has become notable in itself. The fact is that her name appears in articles about the shrine, and is a bone of contention between Muslims in the area,, and Christians. That is, the contention is notable and is not otherwise covered directly in Wikipedia even though it has been the subject of a BBC documentary etc. Collect (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per BarrelProof. Groshnik said "The page has been ruthlessly edited through the years and bears no resemblance to the original contents." Yes, on WP this lands somewhere between standard and quite desirable. Not being directly under the subjects control is one of the things that gives WP some value, and gives it some interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, VERY weak keep--though the BLP1E argument isn't bad, if one argues that it's not about the book but about the shenanigans in Sranigar. The book's notability is also just really tenuous; it's fringe, of course, and In ictu oculi, I think you overestimate what Google Books does: many of your search results don't actually contain your search term (they're just somehow "associated"). This shows up but doesn't mention Olsson. And what a hit like this one does is not clear: it lists Olsson in the bibliography, but doesn't cite or discuss it. In other words, I see nothing that is actually reliable which discusses that book. And if FRINGE requires us to find serious sources that discuss weird stuff, well, this one fails too: note how the "Critical reception" section is completely unsourced, and so "Scholarly opinion unanimously rejects the arguments in Suzanne Olson's books", which would be the nicest thing one can say in terms of notability, isn't even verified. The more I look at this, the more I am convinced that we might as well delete this, so here we go: delete. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that section is a very recent addition, as I remember things were reasonably well-sourced after the war of ca april 2017. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I just dropped that in in a hurry related to the comments above that if it stays it should have some critical content on the basic thesis. Which is difficult because she is the latest rehash of things that were rejected by scholars in relation to the earlier fringe writers like Kersten. In the event of a delete I would rather a blank and redirect to the Roza Bal article (where she will still warrant a mention because of the Straits Times and Times of India references) in order to keep track on the sock issue. Should the socks come back trying to plant a promotional article. Unless they take the view that Wikipedia is hopelessly against fringe (hence their wish for it to be deleted this time). In ictu oculi (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted, I agree. She's a "See also" there now, but that be changed to a sentence or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So to be absolutely clear the option here if deleted is redirect to preserve page history rather than just atomize. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: GBooks drives me nuts at times. As you suggest, many of it's hits are simply useless as they contain nothing substantial (or trivial) about what you think you're looking for. GScholar pulls up all sorts of non-scholarly nonsense, someone should gets the trades description act people after them. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, better? [3]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um. No, not really better, unless the first one actually mentions Olsson by name as "fiction", he doesn't just mean all the Ahmaddiya/Kersten material is "fiction". It is easy enough to source the big name scholars who have already rejected the thesis since Olsson is just recycling Holger Kersten and others. Rather than deleting the scholars who reject the thesis simply copy across sources from the Holger Kersten article. Sourcing isn't a problem here. The lack of anything new with Olsson rather than her self-promotion and run in with the local muslim gravekeepers is the only issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this at Talk:Suzanne_Olsson#Critical_reception. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fringe, but not notable and promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Blank and redirect as suggested above. What I see at Google books is mainly trivial mentions, a link to her website, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. To all of you Wiki editors who are voting to delete my Biography page, I am requesting speedy deletion. For years I have endured subtle yet significant negative edits. Beginning with emphasis that I claimed to be a descendant of Jesus (ommiting iinclusion about the laws of Islam regarding DNA recovery), or that I wrote on a fringe topic which is widely discredited by scholars, or that I personally disrupted the Roza Bal shrine, threatened the caretakers, and had my visa cancelled for upsetting local religious feelings…or that the shrine is a local "Muslim" shrine and all locals discredit the claims that it is associated with Jesus. Now take a look at other authors and other pages on this topic. Take a look at the biographies for [Kashmiri], [Kersten], [Hassnain], and all Ahmaddi commentaries. At no time, and in no way are these people accused of being unotable for discussing fringe theories, upsetting local Muslim beliefs, ‘Self-promoting” fringe theories, et cetera. A few editors (who I seem to have upset personally) have repeatedly slanted my biography to discredit and diminish me in every subtle way possible. This is unfair, inaccurate, And this hurts. Several comments and so-called ‘public sourced references’ are removed from context, giving a false impression-for example the claim that I "upset local Muslim beliefs resulting in shrine being closed and my visa being canceled". Then why is there no record of this also happening when Aziz Kashmiri or Holger Kersten or Fida Hassnain or [Bakar Salahuddin] (and here) were investigating the shrine and the relics? Why is there no mention of them being signaled out or discredited for publishing “fringe theories” you disparage me with? This is never mentioned on their Wiki Biography pages. When the Gvt. Of India film crews (led by Yashendra Prasad) arrived at the Roza Bal shrine, like me )I was there in the midst of the Taliban War- terrorism was everywhere!) they were also in the midst of terrorism and violence, threatened, forbidden in the tomb, and driven away with threats of violence. Why signal me out as though I was the only one to arrive and “offend local Muslim beliefs”? The entire world seems to offend Muslim beliefs. The Roza Bal is documented to be almost 2,000 years old. How can it be a “Muslim” shrine, when Islam itself was only founded 1500 years ago? You editors are the ones not making any sense here. I could go on, but the point is this: I do not believe the current wiki editors are being fair or balanced. I do not believe they ever will be. I am requesting a speedy deletion and beg that jno one start another wiki page about me or my book of no consequence. You made your points. Wiki has done me more harm than all the terrorists I ever encountered in India or Pakistan. It has never been the Wiki policy to allow contentious, slanted, derogatory or biased material inserted in to Biographies. Further, you each have entirely overlooked the fact that expanding retrieval of ancient DNA from Roza Bal and other ancient tombs, whether by me or others, is a vital step to arriving at the truth. Yet you all conveniently overlook this Project and rant on about what a “disruption” I am, and have “nothing new” to offer this field of investigation. I am sorry you feel that way. I assure you much is happening behind the scenes that is not yet known publicly. I have worked tirelessly for the protection and research at these ancient tombs. One day all the years of continued research will be clear. For now, I feel helpless against the current lot of Wiki editors here-some of us have been at loggerheads for years...that is why I beg for a speedy deletion. I assure you that neither myself nor anyone in my family has any desire to see another Wiki page about me ever inserted here again. If you cant be fair and balanced, then at least leave me alone and do no harm. That is the wiki policy you have forgotten to apply. Thank you. 205.173.37.113 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson[reply]

It has never been Wikipedia's policy to allow notable subjects to whitewash their articles, to remove well-documented material or an entire well-documented page just because they don't like it. When (hypothetically) someone has managed primarily to get themselves reported repeatedly in a negative light, that can produce an article that, though negative in tone, is fully in line with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia aims at giving a 'fair and balanced' representation of the individual from the perspective of the coverage they have received (WP:UNDUE), not based on their own self-image. Articles on the clearly non-notable should be deleted and those of marginally-notable people can be, but in saying "in no way are these people accused of being unotable for discussing fringe theories" you seem to indicate you consider yourself notable, that you have received sufficient coverage to have an article. However, if that is the case, the article must reflect that coverage, giving particular weight to the coverage that provides the notability, even if that coverage is negative. Without commenting on your entire WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia cares not one iota about what you happen to think "is a vital step to arriving at the truth" nor your predictions about what you personally think "will be clear" at some point in the future, all completely irrelevant. What is happening "behind the scenes that is not yet known publicly" is by definition not fodder for Wikipedia.(WP:V) This discussion is not about Speedy deletion, which is distinct from the AfD process, and previous requests for a speedy deletion of this page have been declined based on a failure to meet any of the established criteria - this AfD must take its course. (And since User:Groshnik appeared out of nowhere to make the same demand for a speedy deletion, I have to wonder. . . .) On the other hand, if on conclusion of this discussion it is determined that the subject is not notable at this time, any attempt to create a new page will be subject to speedy deletion (WP:G4) unless notability will have since been acquired by additional coverage. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae:: you completely misrepresent this discussion -- this is not about "me" or if I 'think' I am famous or notable, or if I rehashed an old story - a fringe topic---or if I dont like the way I am represented in the article. This is about bad Wiki editors who denegrade and misrepresent a topic and person..."in a negative light..." knowing that supporting facts are ignored-(for example, overlooking the entire Taliban War as a major contributing factor to the problems at the tomb)- done with intention and - deliberate malice- Your defense-- "this is fully in line with Wikipedia policy" is totally false. No it is is not. This has never been wikipedia policy. You have not applied the same standards of reporting to other authors and researchers connected with Roza Bal and 'Jesus in India' theories. My goodness, you all didn't even have the decency and normalcy to insert a proper link to my "dreadful self-published book." I can find no other author, self-published or not- anywhere on Wikipedia- where such an appropriate link would be missing....no matter how bad the book or the author is regarded! I have many years of records of wikipedia editing that reflects malice and bias. Enough is enough. Delete the page. Go edit some of those more 'notable' people you are always comparing me with....I'm sure they'll just love you for it. Thank you. 205.173.37.113 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Suzanne Olsson[reply]

Except I don't think I do misrepresent it. The only non-stale objection raised in the nom is lack of notability. You say 'delete', but leave the distinct impression that you think you are notable, which would mean you think that sole rationale for deletion is untrue. There is a dissonance there. What you dispute is not that you are notable enough for there to be a page, but what the content of that page should be, an entirely different complaint and one usually addressed on Talk pages and through conflict resolution, not by deleting the page (not what AfDs or speedy deletion are for). You call for the negative press to be tempered based on an external context you think is relevant, but were one to distort the plain reading of a source text based on anything else, that runs the risk of violating WP:NOR and/or WP:SYNTH - appropriate representation of sourced material requires that the text be changed to match the sources, not that the sources be reinterpreted to match the desired text. It is indeed within Wikipedia policy to have a page with a negative tone if that is what is found in the majority of reliable, independent sources about the individual. The problem comes when someone creates too much bad press to be balanced by what little (if any) non-negative coverage they receive. And are you really complaining that Wikipedia isn't helping you advertise your book? Finally, you don't get to decide what pages I edit (and I have never compared you to anyone else, except your various sock and meat puppets). Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This rather suggests whatever the result here, delete or merge/mention, a sockwatch will be ongoing. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge-mention, or keep. I don't see any outcome that will bring an end to the problem. The Groshnik sock already said as much if it gets kept, and after the 2008 deletion the subject waited 5 years and then tried to sneak in a recreation under two different namespaces, once using a sock account. Any way it comes out, it seems, there will likely be need for sockwatch. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep but protect the page. There is a good deal of RS coverage of Olsson - most of it debunking her kooky "theories." One understands why she prefers that the page be deleted. It should be kept in part because there is SIGCOV of her fringe assertions and misbehavior in what is, after all, a shrine, and in part because Wikipedia plays a useful role enabling the curious to rapidly discover reliable sources debunking fringe/crackpot theories like Olssen's.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is enough coverage with multiple articles in national newspapers to pass GNG. If that were all it would be possible to legitimately delete on BLP1E if all of the coverage she had received was based on her activities at the shrine. BLP1E can not be applied because she has also received coverage related to her theories and writings. This coverage, without the national coverage previously mentioned, would not merit an article based on GNG, AUTHOR or PROF. Combined, however, she is notable by Wikipedia standards.

  As to her request that we delete the article; while her notability is borderline her profile is not. People looking into various 'Jesus archeology' will very likely run across her name. She also seeks out publicity/recognition for herself and her theories so she is not the 'essentially private individual' that we typically grant 'courtesy deletion' to. (If the accusations, above, about the subject (re)creating an article about herself then a 'courtesy deletion' is out of the question - she sought out coverage. Evidently repeatedly.) Jbh ^Talk 02:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep under special surveillance. I've never participated, but I've watched this popcorn-worthy drama unfold for the past decade or so. There is barely notability now as of 2018. Notability is obviously a minimum standard and not a guarantee of inclusion in the encyclopedia, which is why I'm sort of wavering here, but I think that even those who support deletion could agree that the subject's notability now is different from her notability in 2008. If the article is kept, then perhaps a sort of community sanction could be enacted to restrict editing of the article beyond normal standards. I really don't think I've seen anything like this fiasco on Wikipedia in a decade of editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment this passed an AfD as a keep in 2014. See here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie Olsson. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you look just under the first comment on this page, there´s 6 afd/mfd's in total. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 21 February 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.