Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 (non-admin closure), as the consensus of this discussion has determined the subject meets notability requirements.

talk) 17:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person is only notable for one event. The only notable thing about this person is that it is claimed that she was the first person that was born in Antarctica. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There doesn't seem to be much more to say about her, but she has an interesting claim to historic significance. A merge to another article might be OK if there's a way to do it without losing information, but I think the page is fine where it is. Zagalejo^^^ 06:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was notable enough to get referenced in at least three books. A search for Solveig Jacobsen + "South Georgia" turns up (apart from the book already in the article): Robert Headland, Chronological List of Antarctic Expeditions and Related Historical Events (1989), 256; Elizabeth Chipman, Women on the Ice: A History of Women in the Far South (1986), 171; perhaps also Beau Riffenburgh, Encyclopedia of the Antarctic (2007), but that won't let me see even a snippet. N p holmes (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge No appreciable notability on his own. But as part of the history of those explorations quite appropriate. Plus I don't know how to make those fancy letters with my keyboard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see the argument for merging, though I can't imagine where it would merge to and not look obviously shoe horned in. That she is notable, albiet only through a quirk of nature, seems like a poor deletion rationale. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would merge here Antarctic Convergence and Grytviken (if he's not already there which he likely is) and redirect this article to the second location. Better to have one good article detailing this history than flotsam and jetsom scattered about. But I am outnumbered. Does the first born in every far flung region get an article? Just seems to me he is tied to the history of the place and whaling etc. and not a historic or notable person apart from that context. It's like an article on the apple that fell on Newton's head. "It was red. And ripe..."ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, first child born on a continent is kind of special, surely? Especially one with, AFAIK, no native people...(maybe she is the first native Antarctican?) --Narson ~ Talk • 10:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable enough to be referenced and unique enough to deserve an article in HER own right. Only notable IS notable, I really can't see any rationale for delete at all. I don't see convincing arguments for a merge either, any merge would look like it was shoe horned in and dare I say it the objective of this project is to build a quality encyclopedia. What is proposed is hardly conducive to that. Justin talk 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do satisfy the
    WP:BIO1E. I think a merge would be reasonable, except that I can't think of a suitable merge target. I don't think Grytviken is broad enough, and given the complete lack of history on Antarctic Convergence I think merging this in there would look horribly contrived. So, since the information does belong on Wikipedia, I'll say keep, without dismissing a possible future merger if a target is found. Pfainuk talk 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - notability established
    the usual way. Inclusion should not be decided on ethical judgements about who deserves to be notable, but historical judgements about who is notable. WilyD 12:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – IMO certainly notable. Can't see the point for merging.--Zenit (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable enough, well referenced so it doesn't harm the encyclopaedia. No reason to delete. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solveig_Gunbjørg_Jacobsen&oldid=1138777789"