Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Villand (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Villand

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Per Villand
• Articles for deletion/Per Villand (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Per Villand (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)

This was nominated before, and somehow kept. In my opinion, though of course this is a subjective remark, the article creator severely bludgeoned the discussion, causing myself to cease participating in it. (Check for yourselves) But here we go again. My concern is that the subject is nowhere near passing our WP:GNG guide or other inclusion guidelines.

This is a stable link to the article as it looks upon this nomination, and I will adress the nature of the references. Remember that a reference must be non-trivial coverage in a secondary source independent of the subject to confer notability.

1. primary source
2. published by the subject
3. published by the subject
4. published by the subject
5. published by the subject / database entry, trivial coverage
6. published by the subject / database entry, trivial coverage
7. a "petit piece" as we call it here, in a local newspaper. Pretty trivial
8. primary source
9. published by the subject
10. same as no. 1
11. database entry, trivial coverage
12. published by the subject
13. database entry, trivial coverage
14. database entry, trivial coverage
15. same as no 5
16. same as no 6
17. give me a break... ok, primary source
18. general link to a website, also dead link, meaningless
19. general link, not about the subject
20. published by the subject
21. published by the subject (cv printed in the preface of his own book)
22. primary source

Conclusion: not a single independent non-trivial source. A film was made describing his ALS case, but this was more of an educational/informational film produced within a small college. Geschichte (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete A non notable subject, either under GNG or NPROF or any other guideline. Victim of WP:REFBOMBing that should be put out if its misery. Catrìona (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I agreee that this topic is not noteable. He does not meet WP:Academic or WP:GNG.CircleGirl (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

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.