Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivar Virgin

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Virgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I proposed this article because "No evidence of notability. The single source is an extremely inclusive list of people with very short, stenographic "biographies", and hardly an indication of notability (looking at other entries, I see a lot of "apothecary", "reserve lieutenant", "veterinary", "engineer", ...)." The Prod was removed with the addition of "more references and an entire document about his biography that should establish a form of notability". However, these sources are:

• A biography of his father, which just mentions Ivar as his son. Worse, the source for that document is ... Swedish Wikipedia. So an unreliable source which isn't about Ivar.
• A book which mentions Ivar on one line as a sub-lieutenant, with about 30 superiors in that regiment alone.

As further reading is added a magazine from what looks to be a veterans association for a batallion, describing one of their former chefs. This is not an independent source but an organisation describing their own history, just like many company, club, ... member magazines do.

All in all, there isn't enough here to establish notability. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSo an unreliable source which isn't about Ivar There are other sources that mention that they are related with a quick search.As further reading is added a magazine from what looks to be a veterans association for a batallion, describing one of their former chefs. This is not an independent source but an organisation describing their own history, just like many company, club, ... member magazines do. Many biography articles that are currently in mainspace currently are referenced by "non independent sources". Can you also define what that means by your standards. Primary sources are also more reliable in this specific context per WP:RSPRIMARY. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For WP:GNG notability, you need sources that are independent and reliable (other, e.g. primary, sources can be used in articles in addition, but those can't be used to establish notability). That we probably have many articles which fail this requirement is a problem with those articles, but not a reason to let this one remain as well. Fram (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're applying secondary sources, then at least 3 references within the current revision that aren't officially from the state and are from different parties. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER & I see no other claim of notability. It should be noted thet there are sources which are good for confirming information but which do not serve to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Fram, you nominated this article like 5 minutes after it was created... what's the rush? And why not just move it to draft and have the author continue to work on it? - wolf 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Four hours, actually. And draftifying is not intended for subjects which aren't notable. Fram (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no demonstration of notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SOLDIER is no longer used. Saftgurka (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That... makes no sense at all. Fram (talk) 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also makes no sense at all refering to it as TheLongTone did, as it "is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people". Saftgurka (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but they added "and I see no other claim of notability". The AfD nomination itself also doesn't mention NSOLDIER. So "keep" because some page which wasn't the reason for deletion in the first place is no longer valid, makes no sense. Fram (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2022 (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.