Nils Janson – Restore as meeting the criterion #12 of WP:MUSIC. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nils Janson (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Not a valid deletion. Criteria 12 (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) is clearly met. This is very easy to prove. My source is the official website of swedish national radio [1], Sveriges Radio, and ought to be considered believable. I can also refer to the program schedule of the night in question, feb 6th, when the 120 min show was broadcast [2] (take a look, click the show at 22.00 and you see that it features "Nils Janson Kvartett"). This is all in swedish but sources are not requiered to be in english and translation ought to be easy. Surely there is some other swede than me here that can verify my claim? Ikterus (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can someone who speaks Swedish have a look at this? Stifle (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore per Usrnme h8er. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore, as a Swekipedian I can confirm that the source is a Swedish government radio article and announcement of a 2hr special focusing on the subject. This means he meets WP:MUSIC#12 which appears to have been overlooked in the AfD closure. Also, a couple of people arguing for keep don't seem to have actually !voted in the discussion and may have been missed. ~~Notice that the SR source uses the Swedish spelling of his surname, Jansson (literally Jans son) which is probably correct and probably where the page should be restored to.~~ _{Hur ofta hjälper det att kunna svenska på en wiki?} Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] _{Truleg oftare enn det er hjelp i å kunne norsk. ;-)} - Hordaland (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Further sources from sv: review in SvD, one of Swedens two big morning newspapers and review in DN, the other big morning newspaper. I've also stricken the spelling comment in the previous comment as an effect of the two other sources and sv wiki spelling it Janson - the single s spelling is less common but not unheard of. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] restore clearly the wrong outcome. #12 was specifically cited in the discussion but not heeded by the closing admin. But for a recent difference of opinion with the deleting admin I would have speedy restored this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn (and, if one likes, relist) I don't know that any consensus about whether criterion twelve was met was readily appreciable, and even as the discussion had already been relisted once, I think the closing admin would have done best to relist this one toward a thorough consideration of the sources adduced toward notability (the discussion amongst Ikterus, Phil, and neon was stale, but the issues raised therein might have been taken up by others), although his saving us from the continued usage of "criteria" for the singular is to be commended. I do not imagine, though, that there remains any grand disagreement about whether the sources satisfy WP:MUSIC, such that it may not be necessary that an AfD follow restoration. (In traditional DRV parlance, this is an overturn to "no consensus" and relist, but I avoid that terminology because I don't mean to suggest that "no consensus" would have been the right close here; only electing to relist, not to close, can be justified here.) Joe 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore; I think the outcome of this AfD was indeed wrong, possibly due to the confusing way the discussion unfolded. It's hard to wring any kind of consensus out of that debate due to low levels of participation and lack of agreement between the participants that were there. It does appear, upon the review of the source that's now taken place in this DRV, that criterion 12 of WP:MUSIC is fulfilled; so the notability concern seems to be alleviated. Restore this, integrating the new source, and if there are still concerns another deletion discussion can be held, but it looks like this article may well be a keeper. ~ mazca ^t\|c 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] ~~Restore~~; So what happens now? The consensus seems to be that the deletion was not the right outcome. We just wait for an admin? Ikterus (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Once the five-day listing period has elapsed, an uninvolved admin will come and close the discussion and take any appropriate action. I struck out your bolded "restore" as by listing here it is already clear that you want the article restored — it may give an incorrect appearance that your position has more support than it does. Please prefix additional comments with "comment" or nothing at all. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ok thanks. Ikterus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Nils Janson – Restore as meeting the criterion #12 of WP:MUSIC. – Tikiwont (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Not a valid deletion. Criteria 12 (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) is clearly met.
This is very easy to prove. My source is the official website of swedish national radio [1], Sveriges Radio, and ought to be considered believable. I can also refer to the program schedule of the night in question, feb 6th, when the 120 min show was broadcast [2] (take a look, click the show at 22.00 and you see that it features "Nils Janson Kvartett"). This is all in swedish but sources are not requiered to be in english and translation ought to be easy. Surely there is some other swede than me here that can verify my claim? Ikterus (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who speaks Swedish have a look at this? Stifle (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per Usrnme h8er. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, as a Swekipedian I can confirm that the source is a Swedish government radio article and announcement of a 2hr special focusing on the subject. This means he meets WP:MUSIC#12 which appears to have been overlooked in the AfD closure. Also, a couple of people arguing for keep don't seem to have actually !voted in the discussion and may have been missed. ~~Notice that the SR source uses the Swedish spelling of his surname, Jansson (literally Jans son) which is probably correct and probably where the page should be restored to.~~ _{Hur ofta hjälper det att kunna svenska på en wiki?} Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_{Truleg oftare enn det er hjelp i å kunne norsk. ;-)} - Hordaland (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources from sv: review in SvD, one of Swedens two big morning newspapers and review in DN, the other big morning newspaper. I've also stricken the spelling comment in the previous comment as an effect of the two other sources and sv wiki spelling it Janson - the single s spelling is less common but not unheard of. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
restore clearly the wrong outcome. #12 was specifically cited in the discussion but not heeded by the closing admin. But for a recent difference of opinion with the deleting admin I would have speedy restored this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (and, if one likes, relist) I don't know that any consensus about whether criterion twelve was met was readily appreciable, and even as the discussion had already been relisted once, I think the closing admin would have done best to relist this one toward a thorough consideration of the sources adduced toward notability (the discussion amongst Ikterus, Phil, and neon was stale, but the issues raised therein might have been taken up by others), although his saving us from the continued usage of "criteria" for the singular is to be commended. I do not imagine, though, that there remains any grand disagreement about whether the sources satisfy WP:MUSIC, such that it may not be necessary that an AfD follow restoration. (In traditional DRV parlance, this is an overturn to "no consensus" and relist, but I avoid that terminology because I don't mean to suggest that "no consensus" would have been the right close here; only electing to relist, not to close, can be justified here.) Joe 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore; I think the outcome of this AfD was indeed wrong, possibly due to the confusing way the discussion unfolded. It's hard to wring any kind of consensus out of that debate due to low levels of participation and lack of agreement between the participants that were there. It does appear, upon the review of the source that's now taken place in this DRV, that criterion 12 of WP:MUSIC is fulfilled; so the notability concern seems to be alleviated. Restore this, integrating the new source, and if there are still concerns another deletion discussion can be held, but it looks like this article may well be a keeper. ~ mazca ^t|c 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restore~~; So what happens now? The consensus seems to be that the deletion was not the right outcome. We just wait for an admin? Ikterus (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once the five-day listing period has elapsed, an uninvolved admin will come and close the discussion and take any appropriate action. I struck out your bolded "restore" as by listing here it is already clear that you want the article restored — it may give an incorrect appearance that your position has more support than it does. Please prefix additional comments with "comment" or nothing at all. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. Ikterus (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.