Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kajsa Ekis Ekman

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 speedy keep. This article was created in 2014 and passes general notability guidelines. If there are concerns about conflict of interest, please address accordingly on article or user(s) talk pages. AfD is not the place to discuss that. Missvain (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajsa Ekis Ekman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Reason for nomination: The article has been created by the subject: Kajsa "Ekis" Ekman, herself (aka. User Bokmal2), as a means of self promotion. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability critera outside of Sweden. See Wikipedia:Notability Diastinaut (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a vote must be preceded by a dot. Diastinaut (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The subject is using English and Swedish Wikipedia to push her Marxist-Radical Feminist POV, as she does on social media. She is known to readers of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, as a columnist, but virtually unknown outside Sweden. The article appears to be yet another vanity page.Diastinaut (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:IDONTLIKE!!! VocalIndia (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note:

WP:NPA

.

Reasons for "delete" or "keep" votes should be NPOV, and expressed without agression or histrionics. Diastinaut (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean up tool.19:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)BabbaQ (talk
)

Keep. Notability criteria know no national borders. Ekman has long passed any notability criteria we have, having been at the centre of more than one national debate. She's been translated into at least English, German, French, Spanish and Greek. The nomination does not indicate why she'd fail our criteria of inclusion. A glance at the article history indicates that a good number of persons have worked on the article. The nominator has not explained their reasoning as to why it would be have been written by the article subject. /Julle (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only deletion rationale seems to be
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. pburka (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note:

Wikipedia:ILIKEIT (for example: because the subject is Swedish, and the voter is Swedish) is not a reason to keep an article. Diastinaut (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: The nominator has no opinion on the subject. Reason for

WP:AFD nominations clearly stated on user page Diastinaut (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: The nominator clearly has an opinion on the subject as indicated by the following: The subject is using English and Swedish Wikipedia to push her Marxist-Radical Feminist POV, as she does on social media. --

Wolf 13:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - I honestly can't believe the rationale for deletion is actually "The subject does not meet Wikipedia notability critera outside of Sweden". If the subject is notable in Sweden then the subject deserves an article on any and every Wikipedia no matter the nationality or language written. If they choose not to include her then that is their business. An article was written on a notable woman who happens to be Swedish. The article is sourced and clearly proves her notability. She passes the basic GNG requirements. --
Wolf 13:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: The nominator has no opinion on the subject. The primary reason for AfD nomination is self promotion. Wikipedia is not a soupbox, nor a social media platform. Searching for self-promotional articles and nominating them for deletion is the primary mission of the nominator. The purpose of the discussion is to reach a consensus on deletion, and nothing more. Diastinaut (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about the nominators personal mission on Wikipedia. The nominator expressed they have no opinion on the subject after stating that they somehow know who and why the article was created without producing any concrete evidence to support said claims. Where is the evidence that the creator of the article is the subject? Where is the evidence that the subject wrote the article as a self-promotional piece? I believe a reasonable nomination would be that the article is, in the nominators opinion, promotional. Unless the nominator is somehow connected to the subject and can produce definitive evidence that the creator is, in fact, the subject then the nominator themselves is POV pushing and has their own COI in regards to their mission on Wikipedia. The consensus will be what it is --

Wolf 14:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Tsistunagiska The purpose of this discussion page is to reach a consensus on deletion, and not to present conspiracy theories. You have cast your vote, and now you must wait for the result. Diastinaut (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

And you cast your vote twice and continue to debate with other editors who come here to the AfD. Why should you be the only one who can continue to speak here? If you comment then others can continue to comment. If you don't want to continue to debate or discuss the article then I suggest you take your own medicine. You "cast your vote" now wait for the results. --

Wolf 15:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Diastinaut: What is your problem ? I dont understand really ! It's very confusing here. I think you need a medicine. VocalIndia (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPA. If you continue, you may be reported to an administrator, and risk being blocked. Diastinaut (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The nominator has cast a single vote. (a vote must be preceded by a dot, followed by delete or keep). The "reason for nomination" does not count as a vote. Diastinaut (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was created in 2014 and has been considerably expanded by various editors since. This is hardly the time to list it for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creation date of the article is not relevant to

WP:AFD. I have successfully nominated (deleted) much older articles, which had gone un-noticed under the WikiRadar for over a decade, simply because so few ever searched for the article. Reasons for delete or keep votes should be based on Wikipedia:Deletion policy alone. Diastinaut (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: notability is not restricted to any one sovereign domain; notability is notability in all places and at all times. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2021 (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.