Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspar Alpsten

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. ✗plicit 00:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caspar Alpsten

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

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage in my sources to confirm WP:GNG notability. Also doesn't seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO. Every single source cited is self-published and I couldn't locate any WP:RS on Alpsten. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS, no notability - entirely promotional. Ingratis (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All but two sources of the Caspar Alpsten page aren't actively controlled by the user so all sources qualify as reliable and independent, the subject is notable and the article upholds Wikipedia standards. The user Ingratis seems to not have done his research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Blankslate123 (talk • contribs) 21.03, 9 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE, see SPI Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this page, I'd like refute any points made in question to notability or reliability of the majority of sources cited. I must agree however that some points are poorly cited with one or two sources being self published, this is because I first saw them in print. I wasn't quite sure to leave those out totally or simply leave those minor details unverified. If the consensus is so, I'd like to take the opportunity to remove and replace any information that isn't 100% verifiable. I'm also quite new to the Wikipedia community, I've made an effort to look into the guidelines before editing the article and in my view the subject fit all the relevant criteria to be on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindropcroptop (talk • contribs) 21.26, 9 January 2022 (UTC) (now blocked)

Where is this significant coverage then? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also searched but found no reliable sources about this person or his work. Possibly TOOSOON. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks SIGCOV from reliable third party sources.-KH-1 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - faily GNG, no proof of notability, lack of 3rd party coverage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All of the potential sources appear to be self-published. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability standards due to a lack of sigcov. Appears also to be a WP:CONFLICT. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic and this article is not aiding this purpose. Such-change47 (talk) 02:45, 16 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.