Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valgerður Þóroddsdóttir

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 keep. czar 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valgerður Þóroddsdóttir

[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)

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Furthermore article does not contain any relevant or encyclopedic content. Arielarielariel (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arielarielariel (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known poet and publisher in Iceland. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in most of Iceland's major media outlets, such as Morgunblaðið [1], Fréttablaðið [2], RÚV [3][4],Dagblaðið Vísir [5]. Alvaldi (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: appears to be notable both as poet and as translator. Note that there are many sources under her Anglicised name Vala Thorodds, eg this. PamD 09:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is full of relevant and encyclopedic content. pburka (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something strange about the edit history of this article, as the editor now proposing deletion has edited it repeatedly over the years, on some occasions appearing to be removing well-sourced content as here, and has edited very little unconnected with this topic. They also appear to be the creator of the (unsourced, unillustrated) stub in Icelandic Wiki where they were an active editor 2015-2017; they do not appear to have edited the Swedish wiki article from which this en.wiki article was originally translated. PamD 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, both the links removed on 8th Jan with comment "(Citations do not exist, do not link to any external verifying information (links broken). Have been deleted. The further links that do work do not verify the information given.)" are available on the Internet Archive (here and here). Having removed them (rather than tagging as dead links or taking the time to find the archived copies) the editor then proposed the 6-year-old article for speedy deletion A7. Not constructive editing practice. PamD 15:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there pattern of editing is a bit odd, but I can see that they are doing anything nefariouus. They have taken some material away, but also added material and added citations...and have been doing it for 4 years. A little bit unusual, but you can work on a page, and then decide that may be it isn't warranted upon reflection. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable from the sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficiently well sourced for notability. Can't understand why the nominator does not consider this article encyclopaedic.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG - the PEN nomination in particular as solid support. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This easily meets GNG based just on the sources pointed out in this AfD. It seems like she's had both national and international press coverage / critical attention which is a good indicator of her notability as a poet. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:42, 14 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.