Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne M. Olsson

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:BIODEL: this is a biography of a non-public figure, the subject has repeatedly asked for the deletion of the article and there is no consensus to keep it. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne M. Olsson

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, wrote an non-notable books, only 3rd party coverage is from one incident where she got kicked out of a country for trying to dig up "the remains of Jesus" to prove he's her ancestor. Only covered in ~~local media~~ Regional media, and not widely covered. — raeky t 04:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP1E, fails ACADEMIC and fails CRIME fails AUTHOR. (note that I disagree with any analysis that calls Times of India "local media"- it is a national paper of one of the most populous countries, if that is "local", then every newspaper is local.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected on Times of India... changed. — raeky t 05:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you know Raeky, as I said below, some people seem to feel the pressure from the subject of the article's desire to affect content about themselves and in the haste to act you may make simple and minor errors such as calling it local or typos that refer to Ms Olsson as "he" and to Jesus as "she" (I fixed that above). I do understand the pressure you may feel, but there should be no pressure-induced rush here and policy should be followed in an orderly manner. Wikipedia cannot be driven by edict. History2007 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going with your corrections... The Times of India is not "regional media": it is a national newspaper in the second-most populous country on the planet; it claims to be the biggest-selling English-language newspaper in the world. Dricherby (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject wrote and self published an unimportant book on an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited. Minimal notoriety in local press.Questionable and obscure sources, mostly original research. Has no value and nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Let her go in peace. Sooner the better. I vote for speedy deletion.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize Ms Olsson that deleting the article is not going to suppress the Times of India information? That source is also used in the lede of the Roza Bal article (ref #7 now) and given that it is WP:RS may also be used elsewhere. Ironically, as stated before, your best line of reasoning to restate the position that you have since retracted your claim o be the "59th descendant of Jesus" may be to use WP:ABOUTSELF. And given some sources, this page might allow you to explain that you either just claimed it to get better access to the tomb (as suggested at one point) or that you just changed your mind based on research (as also suggested) - whichever may be the truth. So you do need to weigh that. And please do note that the WP:ANI thread can not be deleted either, and it states the same things. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - The problem with trying to delete this article is that the subject simply does not fail either WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E. There are multiple reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage and with regard to a series of events and visits and books, not just one. The Times of India certainly isn't "local media", not is the Asia Times, nor India Today, nor the New Straits Times. That's significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. WP:GNG = Y.

The bigger issue here is that this is the BLP of a Wikipedia editor who has since become disruptive and has requested (in several places, including above) that the article about her be deleted. As such, this should be treated like any other OTRS ticket from the subject of a BLP who wants it deleted. Normally, in cases of marginal notability, we accept the subject's wishes and delete the article, especially when it includes claims the subject has suggested are untrue (WP:V and WP:RS aside). If there's no value to WP in keeping it (there isn't, really) then it should go and to sort this out, it should go quickly.

Full disclosure: I was one of the editors who took it from MfD, sought the subject's okay (not required, but as a courtesy) and fixed the article up for submission to article space. Stalwart111 05:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but what is the rush to delete? The rush may be in part based on the high level of pressure you may be feeling from the article subject's objection to the content of the article. Content that comes from a WP:RS newspaper with a circulation of 3 million. Wikipedia decisions should not be based on how much pressure the subject of an article generates. I think policy should be allowed to prevail as it would in other cases, regardless of the subject's desires to affect it. History2007 (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I would publish that material, based on those sources, again and make no apology for doing so in the first place. From a purely policy perspective, I see no reason for deleting the article. In fact I saw good reason for publishing it in the first place and did so. But I've also taken part in a good many OTRS-based BLP AFDs and I know how they generally end. Even where notability is established, if having the article (or not) will have no impact on WP as a whole, the general concept of avoiding harm comes into play and the article is (more often than not) deleted. Under the current circumstances, I can't see there being consensus for keeping the article and so I can't see the value in dragging an AFD out for longer than we need to. Stalwart111 06:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd has been up for less than a day. And most people do not even know that it exists, given that it has not been listed anywhere - I just listed it. So no need for rush. WP:D-T (do you want fries with that?) does not apply in Afds. History2007 (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think someone will come along and close it on the basis of my comment, I just see no need to drag it out. I tell you what, I'll take the speedy bit out if there really is a desire to have a comprehensive discussion about it. We've talked about it plenty, so I also see no harm in talking about it a bit more.

Stalwart111 07:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now, regarding OTRS and (WP:HARM - which is an essay, not policy) please help me understand what it is that Ms Olsson disputes in the Times of India article.

That she never wrote letters claiming to be the "59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth"? That cannot be disputed because she clearly stated on the ANI thread that she wrote the letter to claim it in order to "regain the tomb from his influence", referring to the person in India.

That she never attempted to dig up the tomb? But the article already makes it clear that she disputes that she tried to dig. So it states both sides.

That she never planted anything at the tomb? But the article does not say that she planted anything, just that the caretaker said he was worried about it. So it is just about his concern, not allegations of a plant that has taken place yet.

That the caretaker is on the take? But the article does not say anything about that.

That no FIR was filed and her visa was never cancelled? But she will never deny that in straight terms as far as I can see. To date she has never said here (that I have seen) that "no FIR was filed" and "my visa was not cancelled". She just criticizes the caretaker in general terms.

My reading is that this is a case of WP:JDLI on Ms Olsson's part regarding her claiming to be the 59th descendant of Jesus, then retracting it. And she has stated on Wikipages that she retracted it, but not provided an exact source for the retraction. If she does that, then per WP:ABOUTSELF the matter can be easily concluded per policy by also mentioning her claim of retraction in the article. But policy seems to be taking a backseat in the discussions about this issue. That is the problem. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, if we knew the answers to those questions we would have saved ourselves a lot of time. Stalwart111 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So until Ms Olsson answers these in clear and simple yes/no terms there is no point in rushing to delete this page, or modify Wiki content based on her "demands" to OTRS so to speak. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, on the BLP noticeboard, I asked the same questions, and just before this edit, Ms Olsson said she chose to answer only the one about Kersten, and no other one yet. So I confirmed that, and she was advised to email Times of India to run an update to their story, check if an FIR had been filed, etc. She then typed her "final word" without specifically answering the questions above and we left it at that. So I am not expecting any more answers until she contacts The Times of India. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on this edit much of the information in the Times of India article has been confirmed, e.g. the letter to the caretaker, the claim to be the 59th descendant, etc. It seems that the Times of India did their job right, and the caretaker took the letters there. So much of the issues on "disputed content" have gone away now it seems. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update H2007, Once more I will remind you that the man who asked to be published in the Times of India article gave untrue and misleading information about those events surrounding me and my presence at the tomb. I have already given you sources and corrections that you prefer to demean or ignore. The only one acting in bad faith around here are you and Reaiky. Shame on you. I asked for Wiki editors to do fair and balanced reporting and use some common sense. It is you who refuses to d so. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"From a purely policy perspective, I see no reason for deleting the article. In fact I saw good reason for publishing it in the first place and did so."

That statement alone has completely invalidated any other argument you could make. End of story. Silver seren^C 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Agree entirely, but I stand by it and I explained exactly how and why the subject passes WP:GNG. But from an WP:OUTCOMES perspective, we've seen plenty of subject-requested-AfDs and the several I have participated in fall into (in my experience) two general categories: The very notable ones are kept, usually with some editing to resolve any content issues (see Patricia Cloherty and the associated AfD, for example). The marginally notable ones are often deleted. I've been on both sides of that argument in a number of AfDs. In this instance, the article was deleted once before, the draft was almost deleted (and would have been had it not been for our promise to fix it, work to fix it and then efforts to move it to article space). I don't value my own work so highly that I would insist on keeping it just because I worked on it, and my impression is that you're the same and that's not what I'm suggesting. I worked on it because I thought it would add something to WP and I'm not upset if others (including the subject) think otherwise. If there's a strong feeling it should be kept then I'll not argue with that either. I've purposefully not responded to any other !votes here. Anyway, I can't imagine my !vote-with-caveats-and-contradictions will be given much weight by a closing admin, but it is genuinely where I fell on this one and it is what it is. Stalwart111 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after all ~~Keep for now~~. I don't see any uniformity in the deletion logic presented above at all anyway. Ms Olsson's own rationale "unimportant book on an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited" is really baffling, to say the least. This is coming from the same person who elsewhere argues passionately that this is an important project in a historical context, etc. Stalwart111 argues that it is notable, etc. There may be just enough publicity to make it meet notability, so no need to rush into deletion. And come to think of it Holger Kersten writes on the same subject and has a page because of it, so how can it be "an obtuse topic in a far away place that few have heard of or visited". So both the topic and the location Roza Bal are notable enough to have wikipages, as are other authors who write about it. So Stalwart111 may be right that it meets GNG. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am confirming my support for "keep" now~~, for looking at it broadly, as Stalwart111 said just above, the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. It is not just for one incident, but due to ongoing involvement in the underlying religious tension issues related to a hot topic of religious conflict in the Middle East, a topic which is the subject of riots and deaths in various places. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the comment about WP:BIODEL below, maybe this should end with less future drama on that page anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject falls far short of meeting WP:Academic and WP:Author. Subject is also asking for deletion. That's three strikes against the article that I'm counting. First Light (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The General Notability Guideline supercedes the two Special Notability Guidelines you cite. Take that away and you are left with "Subject is also asking for deletion," which is what this is all about. That is not how we determine the notability of topics at WP, plain and simple. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has marginal general notability at best, with a few "news" articles (actually fluff articles) covering her insane theories. There is precedence in common practice for marginally notable articles being deleted at the request of the subject. There is precedence for marginally notable articles being deleted, period. First Light (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her theories about her own lineage are separate from her involvement in issues in Kashmir and Ahmadiyya. The tomb in Kashmir theory that she discusses is a fundamental Ahmadiyya belief, and they are somewhere between 10 million to 30 million people, depending on various report. And the Ahmadi are taken seriously around the world, Pakistan has enacted legislation about them (Ordinance XX has its own article) with people sentenced to death, etc. and in Indonesia they were the subject or violent riots in 2011, people were killed in the open, etc. This is a hot topic across multiple continents, and she has been right in the middle of the tension and conflicts in Kashmir. History2007 (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, but I couldn't seem to find any true reliable or academic sources in books or journals about her Kashmir/Ahmadiyya/Jesus theories. Only those tabolid-y news articles, which, granted, appear in a couple of newspapers that also have real news. It only confirms that this subject is marginal, at best. (Notability is not inherited, just by her spouting off about something that is a notable hot topic.) First Light (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite already explained WP:Academic vs WP:GNG just above here. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, but just wanted to point out that her notoriety is based on some articles that are rather tabloid-y. Also, that notability is not inherited, which was in response to you trying to bring up the notability of the Ahmadiyya/Kashmir/Jesus as proof of her notability. First Light (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, your "notability is not inherited" comment could win the "best pun of the month" award if you intended it to also imply that if she is a descendant of Jesus, and he is notable, then she may yet not inherit his notability. That interpretation would certainly brighten up this discussion.... History2007 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a good laugh - there was no pun intended, so thank you for lightening up this discussion by pointing that out. In fact, just in the last few days a DNA study showed that Everyone on Earth is related to everyone else, DNA shows. So if there were little baby Jesus' (pun intended) roaming the earth two thousand years ago, all of us would have inherited some genes, if not some notability. First Light (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject clearly passes the General Notability Guideline from footnotes showing. We neither create nor delete articles on demand, nor should we. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is covered by multiple third-party reliable sources. The article passes WP:GNG. Artichoker^[talk] 20:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have numerous pieces of coverage on her from a number of different reliable sources spanning years and they are certainly not about a single event, but her entire history in the area. I really don't care at all what her opinion is on the subject. She's upset because her opinion on words she stated herself in reliable sources has now changed, so she's trying to retroactively erase the fact that she said them. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. She is very clearly notable under the general notability guideline for her activities in the Middle East and the Caucasus. Silver seren^C 21:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is clearly notable and her article is filling in nicely with multiple reliable references. I see no rush to delete on the demand of the subject. Fylbecatulous talk 02:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being a petty nuisance at a religious site is clearly not a notable act. what exactly do you see as "notable". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was not just that incident, as Silver seren stated. She has been active for a number of years in a number of places, e.g. after coming back to the US she was (WP:ABOUTSELF) a guest speaker on Capitol Hill when they were looking into the conflict between Pakistan and India, etc. and wanted her views because she knows the religious tension issues in the region that drive much of those conflicts and the players in that part of the Middle East. She achieved notability by a special breed of persistence that continues to get her noticed. History2007 (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being persistent is no more notable than being a nuisance pest. 'Suzanne M. Olsson is persistant' does not a claim to notability make. lots of people speak at Capitol Hill, congress frequently has people come in for "typical a man on the street" perspective. and lots of people know, write and talk about the tensions and have actually had their views and analysis published by someone other then themselves. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I meant at all. But anyway, other users have opinions that differ from yours, obviously. History2007 (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plan seems to be to get me banned so anything can be said on my Bio page and I will be safely silenced from 'disruptive editing'. History2007 made more than 18 entries against me just on one page and Reiky made 10 on the same page. They are both pushing hard for this ban. I have already explained the Times of India article and the surrounding circumstances. Not to acknowledge this, to insist on presenting the information out of context and with disregard for the facts I mtyself published about this in my book is the same as these Wiki editors deliberately misleading people and supporting a lie. That's why I request deletion of this Bio page. It is slanted, biased, taken out of context, and thus misleading many people. I dont want any backlash about this on my friends back in Kashmir. Please delete the Bio page. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The only one who can "get you banned" is you if your actions if you happen to be continually disruptive and not follow community consensus advice. And even if you do act in a manner which gets you banned, the article about Suzanne Olsson will not be able to "say anything" - only content that is supported by reliably published sources. The subjects of articles always have the ability to point out factual errors through the OTRS system.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those observations, Red Pen. I have been pointing out errors for some time now- I just noticed someone did make an effort to correct statements on the Bio page. The person who contacted the Times of India gave false and misleading info that everyone in Kashmir knows is not true..One check with local police department verifies the facts. I left Kashmir even though local courts found no reason to cancel my visa (as falsey stated to the Times of India)- I left because of militancy and threats by local fundamentalists who had seized Roza Bal tomb, the very same person who submitted false statements to TOI, nd the very same person many believe was responsible for someone's death shortly before . So I had every reason to believe harm would also come to me.. I still think deletion of the Bio is best. I dont care about the bans anymore..I am so seldom here. I only returned because then Roza Bal page was abysmally inaccurate and incomplete. That page is getting attention from less biased and more well rounded editors and has been improving greatly through their efforts. Meanwhile, I am seriously composing a letter or my web site explaining the Kashmir circumstances and the DNA of God Project in full. Some Wiki editors can be fair and balanced. Some can not and try to second guess everything . That worries me. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not "check with local police departments". - We simply aggregate what has been published in reliable sources.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a reliable source for information. To disregard what I say, knowing I am a first hand eye witness and not a secondary source like someone who contacts TOI-- is to suggest I have said something untrue. That's the implication and I take issue with that.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite frankly, you are NOT a reliable source of information as far as Wikipedia is concerned.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have published and otherwise made public statements about events in Kashmir. I have alos mentioned reliable witnesses who were also involved. After reading many other Wiki biographies, I see this is deemed reliable. On the 'Biographies of Living Persons -Suzanne Olsson'- History2007 made 10 negative comments about me, and Raeky made 4. Then, on 'Articles for Deletion, Suzanne Olsson', History2007 made 14 comments in support of banning me- and Raeky piped in with 2. Then again on [Talk, Suzanne Olsson]', Raeky made 27 comments to ban me ! A total ban of me on Wiki when I have only edited two pages sporadically in 5 years! A tad overkill, eh? SuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of action that you can continue to take IF YOU WANT TO get yourself blocked. As has been told to you numerous times, you are not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Period. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise RedPen. I came across [[1]] under the heading 'Statements of Opinion': 'There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be very clear that the exception is very limited: your opinions/uncontested facts about yourself that are not unduly self-serving.The fact that you claim someone else is a liar is not acceptable. The fact that you state that you no longer believe something that you had previously believed is generally acceptable (unless for example there are other reliable sources that point out actions that you have taken and the sources specifically state that those actions show that your recanting is not believable) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Red Pen. I think I understand. While further researching Biographies on Wiki, I also came across [[2]] 'Avoid victimization-

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of anther's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. I have been objecting to the Times of India article on my Bio page because it was/is taken out of context- and contradicts what the author (myself) clarified in a book and through research. The person who submitted the article did so with malicious intent. The same person also appears in films and documentaries making false claims about other people. It's really a sticky situation. I will try to pull together an explanation on my web site. Need a day or two more to complete it. Thanks and Best wishes, Sue. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 22:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I shall endeavor to straighten out the mess. Thank you Red Pen.. Peace. Sue P.S. I recall it appears in print from several other sources that 'due to the indiscretions of a certain person at the tomb' the DNA Project was halted and Ms. Olsson left Kashmir.' I will seek out those sources. 66.177.27.120 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne Olsson66.177.27.120 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Handily passes WP:GNG with much notice in newspaper articles around the world, as well as a few books. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while there are mentions in the press, are the mentions about anything actually notable? being a nuisance at a shrine? really? how is that notable? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is, by all accounts, notable, based on passing mentions in The India Times and various news websites. But the coverage, let's be honest, is not really significant. Furthermore, her notability fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CRIME, WP:PROF, WP:FRINGE, and WP:CREATIVE; I can't find any evidence she meets any such specific criteria. So we are left with an article about a marginally notable living human being. In the past, upon request of the subject or their agent, we have tended to delete BLPs of marginally notable persons; I can see no change in that consensus. As WP:AfD can't erase every speck of information about this person or her actions. Now, if anyone can convince me that we should keep the article anyway (see e.g., the case of Jack Greenberg (lawyer)), I'll change my mind. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this, this, or this a passing mention? Did you even read the articles? Silver seren^C 18:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, GNG overrides any and all Special Notability Guidelines. The subject doesn't pass WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ECONOMIST, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:POLITICIAN either, but does pass WP:GNG, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she got a lot of attention for an attempt to dig a grave. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handwriting on the wall: Tomorrow the Afd will get to its 7th day. It is quite likely that there will be no consensus either way. Ms Olsson has been advised that in that event WP:BIODEL can apply if the subject of the article desires deletion. She has already asked for that a few times, e.g. here. So WP:BIODEL may bring this to a conclusion in any case and avoid future drama as well. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BIODEL is one of the most misused and worst parts of that page. Silver seren^C 21:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even know about BIODEL until I saw it suggested a few days ago. But regardless of whether we think it is one of the best or worst parts of that page, it is policy. I did not make the policy, I just saw it suggested to her and mentioned it. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy in the sense that someone added it to the page one day and no one noticed it. It has never been put to the community. Silver seren^C 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I can not debate how Wiki-policies are made here during an Afd. From what I gather it is policy. If you think it is not a good policy you can discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and change it at some point. But an Afd page is not for policy modification discussions, of course. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"No rough consensus" seems a fair description of this Afd (I´m split myself), so I think the policy applies, and the article can be deleted. It can always be recreated if she becomes more notable in the future. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 May 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.