Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigval Berg

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigval Berg

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

Non-notable bio, no significant web presence (apart from contribs used in sources), speedy taken down, and PROD (via OTRS!), vanity bio, delete. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant independent reliable sources that would establish that inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Google news only produces cursory press releases, and not that many of them at that. Google Books lists no reviews of his book. Ray^Talk 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (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.