Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Marie 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Marie Olsson[edit]

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

A self-published author who believes Jesus is buried in Kashmir. Refs in article either don't mention her or just briefly mentions her. I'm unable to find reliable references about her, but there are a couple talking about her work from 2010. Bgwhite (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is brand new! It is only a week old. It is developing and sources being added regularly. Give the page a chance to develop. Thank You.Granada2000 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Granada2000Granada2000 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you wanted to develop it, you should have done that in Articles for Creation space and waited for someone to review your proposed article. Once you moved the page to mainspace you gave up any protections for "new pages" and allow it to be picked over by all the mainspace policies. I have no objections to the page being sent back to the draft space so that the advocate for the article can work on improving the submission, but strongly advise that the article not be moved back to mainspace until it is passed by a AFC volunteer to ensure that all policies are met before being re-debuted to mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject certainly fails to meet WP:AUTHOR and also fails the criteria spelled out in WP:BIO in my mind. I am also concerned by the original author's apparent wish to use the article as a vessel to promote both Olssen's writings and fringe theories. I suspect a conflict of interest, to tell the truth. Dolescum (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I won't comment on the articles validity due to the the conflict with my own beliefs (or lack off), however as the Author has shown the desire now to have it removed [1] [2] [3] [4], and there appears to be no proponents to keep the artcile - it would seem a delete is the best action to take. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can't find WP:RS hence doesn't establish WP:GNG. I mean fails WP:NAUTHOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 19:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) (Moving to keep)[reply]

Comment: the broadsheet newspaper citation to which the article's creator objects (Arshad, Sameer (8 May 2010). "Tomb Raider: Jesus buried in Srinagar?". Times of India., see discussion at User_talk:Dolescum#Suzanne_Marie_Olsson) should be given due weight and context rather than deleted. It goes some way towards establishing notability for the subject. ~~Anyway, since that was added by Dolescum,~~ I don't think the page meets any criteria for speedily deletion, even if all contributors now support deletion. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, that source was added by Granada2000 and already listed in the article before I started to edit it, Fayenatic, as you should be able to see from this diff. All I did was extract some extra information from it and clean it up. Dolescum (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (to my own surprise) as I have added or made inline use of further citations from reliable sources. It probably needs trimming of WP:OR, but I think notability is now established. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london. Adequate notability, article needs work, though. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim-Siduri (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see it is notable now though it needs some work, thanks Fayenatic london. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just realised that previous articles about the subject have been deleted, so I have added links above to the old discussions. Moreover, SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) is under a topic ban for writing on the subject of Roza Bal anywhere in Wikipedia. Even though she has also been previously warned about sock-puppetry, this article and its talk page look like abuse of multiple accounts; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuzanneOlsson. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Granada2000 left a URL of an external website on KylieTastic's talk page; the page at that URL appears to be a copy of an old version of the Wikipedia page Suzanne M. Olsson, including some additional potential sources. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last time the article was deleted per WP:BIODEL. That may become relevant again if there´s no clear consensus. I don´t know if there´s better sources this time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Fayenatic has done some sterling work cleaning up the article. Perhaps there is more here than first met my eye. I'm still concerned that the focus of the sources I've read which deal with Olsson directly result from simple sensationalism rather than any genuine notabilty, given the content of some of the news reports. If someone claimed to be Napoleon and then proceeded to vandalise Nelsons Column, would that be notable even if reported in the news? I'm not sure that it would. Dolescum (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply because it's inherited notability from the tomb in Kashmir. I cannot see a single item of notability related to this writer, certainly doesn't even make the first step for academic notability, so what's the criteria? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london. Adequate notability, even if it does need work. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far more notability evidenced than a lot of bios which never have been challenged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work, but nothing that isn't easily fixable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:21, 1 August 2014 (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.