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. Consensus is keep by strength of arguments. Nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Regarding the delete !vote, sources do not have to be in English to establish notability. Therefore what is left are the keep arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Torkildsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This is an utterly hopeless nomination. Notability shown with multiple instances of independent in-depth significant coverage, direct support of hundreds of thousands of sold books, etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand Geschichte's argument but we don't have sources to back it up. I looked at the two Norwegian pages and they also lack sufficient sourcing. From what I can tell, this is an author who has not been translated into English so English language sources will not be available. I would think that there would be sufficient sources in Norwegian, but those pages don't help. Without adequate sourcing this cannot be kept. Lamona (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do the provided sources not back it up? Can you name a single fact in the article body which is currently unsupported?

Note that I'm disregarding the other Wikipedia versions here. Geschichte (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The .no article is unsourced, so that isn't much help. The Dagbladet is behind a paywall so I can't get the full article translated. The Byavisa articles (I searched in each of these) seems to be mainly name-checks. The Adressa page will not translate beyond the first sentence. I can ASSUME GOOD FAITH but I still do not see what this contributes to .en wikipedia. Even one source in English would turn this around for me. I know that non-English sources are allowed, but to be sure sources in English are preferred. I don't find any. Lamona (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, to save others time, that I did a search in Ebsco and in G-Scholar and got nothing in either. Lamona (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Writer with significant sales numbers, and sources have been added. I can't access them, but if Geschichte says they are good enough I trust that – I also wouldn't be able to easily check a print source, for example, and of course we write about things where all or most sources are printed material. And we don't require sources to be in English. /Julle (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2023 (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.