![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Do both daughters have more than one diagnosis, or is this just Swenglish? Possibly 2 typos? Clarity tag added. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 06:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains a translation of Svante Thunberg from sv.wikipedia. |
Where is it, as per huge tag? Btw he sure has been engaged a lot. Only married one of them I guess. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has no meaning. If editors want to delete this article they need to start an Afd.-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can remove the PROD, reverting the removal is not acceptable. An WP:AFD is the route to go down now, IMO. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The article says "was born Svante Fritz Vilhelm Ernman Thunberg" - this would be an amazing coincidence that his birth name contained "Ernman" which is his wife's birth name too. The verification does not match what is written in the Swedish version of the article. Can someone who reads Swedish verify this claim as fact or fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 03:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that this reversal is constructive. Activities may be "well-known", but that does not mean they are notable, or are anything other than filler to try to make the whole notability-wise dubious article (see above here) look more substantial. I will revert this again soon, unless some uninvolved editor thinks that the famous daughter's coattails are sufficient to make things she's done accompanied by daddy notable in regard to him. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
... if we could be spared this type of personally belligerent and accusatory edit summaries. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I'm requesting help with nominating the Svante Thunberg article for deletion (since I don't use an acccount).
My motivation for the nomination is that this article seems to fail the basic criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked on the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife or daughter (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR). I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for
receives 1 casual mention of another man sharing his name/surname complaining about traffic noise in Stockholm. ( [1])
A google search for
receives two mentions of other people sharing the same name, one inventor, another unclear, no mention whatsoever of acting. 110.165.186.42 ( talk) 08:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Somebody inserted a Spanish-language source (ElEspanol.com) as evidence that Svante Thunberg joined Riksteatern, but this is an obvious case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The article is a week old and is obviously based on what was in this (or the Spanish-language version) of this article. The link should be removed. I would do it myself but the article is protected and I don't have an account. It's also not really contested that he joined Riksteatern so I don't think the reference is even needed. 2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 ( talk) 11:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
08:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
New article on redirect by Moonraker ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC).
PS Also see recent questionable activity in the article's edit history, the article's talk page and the nominator's talk page. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, does this hook seem appropriate? of course, i'll defer to any hooks you'd prefer to propose. dying ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1. dying ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
alt1: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not to "save the climate, [but] to save [his] child"?
Hi, Dying, your image is a photo, and I imagine the copyright belongs to someone who took it. This is a drawing and the copyright is mine. I see no problem with alt1, that was an interesting comment I found and added after creating the nomination. Not sure if you are acting as a reviewer here? If you are, I believe the reviewer needs to check all hooks and say if they are within the rules, someone else later decides which is the best one to go with. Moonraker ( talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
if alt0 or alt2 ends up being accepted and you prefer it over either alt1 or alt1b, i can strike both alt1 and alt1b so that a promoter does not have to decide; i had only proposed alt1 in case alt0 was going to be rejected.my comment wasn't originally meant as a full review, but i don't mind doing one for you. however, i just noticed that although the article was created from a redirect, the redirect was created as the result of an afd nomination, meaning that another article had existed before the current one. as a result, i do not know enough about the finer points of dyk to determine if this article meets the newness requirement, so am pinging theleekycauldron for help. dying ( talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1b. dying ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
alt1b: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for his daughter Greta?
Hello, BorgQueen. I would agree with you that the final choice of hook is not up to the nominator. I do not think it is "entitled" for a nominator to want his or her hook to be reviewed. I must have checked out four or five hundred hooks myself, and I have never offered to review one I liked, but not the nominator's hook, which I didn't like. On whether being reviewed is a privilege, the system of QPQs means it is not a one-way street. The regulars here surely act in good faith, on the principle of "do as you would be done by". Moonraker ( talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, since dying struck out both his alts, my ALT2 is the only hook on offer, and there is nothing to stop anyone at all from reviewing that. I see dying said that was "to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved." There is also nothing to stop you or anyone else from suggesting any other hook you like. You have made a personal objection to my hook which you have not related to any DYK rule, and you are not willing to review that; I can only guess why that might be. As it happens, I see nothing "tabloid-style" about it, and it clearly isn't a BLP violation. If it were, you would have removed the facts from the article at once, and you haven't done that. We are simply waiting for a reviewer who will either agree with dying and me that ALT2 is within the rules or else find the DYK rule against it that we haven't seen yet. Then we can take it from there. Moonraker ( talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles should be based on... published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, requires proponents to demonstrate that the source does in fact have that reputation. The absence of one simply does not count – otherwise, everyone would be a subject matter expert. The reason I bring up being cited by others is that WP:USEBYOTHERS would be a likely path to reliability for a source that has somehow had a breakout reputation despite the low counts I noted before, if you can demonstrate it. Another path would be WP:RSCONTEXT's statement:
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.Can you demonstrate some kind of fact-checking or editorial control? Maybe this is the author's first venture into the book world, and has previously published in academic journals, making them a subject-matter expert? I'm not asserting that this source is unreliable or disreputable, I just can't find any evidence to support that it is reliable or reputable. Could you help me out? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Photos of wife and daughter in the article without any photo of subject. Reason (see edit summary): 2There is also a rule that an image offered for DYK needs to be in the article". Where is that rule? And what is this, just a Malena promo by Wikipedia? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Do both daughters have more than one diagnosis, or is this just Swenglish? Possibly 2 typos? Clarity tag added. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 06:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article contains a translation of Svante Thunberg from sv.wikipedia. |
Where is it, as per huge tag? Btw he sure has been engaged a lot. Only married one of them I guess. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has no meaning. If editors want to delete this article they need to start an Afd.-- Obi2canibe ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Anyone can remove the PROD, reverting the removal is not acceptable. An WP:AFD is the route to go down now, IMO. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The article says "was born Svante Fritz Vilhelm Ernman Thunberg" - this would be an amazing coincidence that his birth name contained "Ernman" which is his wife's birth name too. The verification does not match what is written in the Swedish version of the article. Can someone who reads Swedish verify this claim as fact or fiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 ( talk) 03:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe that this reversal is constructive. Activities may be "well-known", but that does not mean they are notable, or are anything other than filler to try to make the whole notability-wise dubious article (see above here) look more substantial. I will revert this again soon, unless some uninvolved editor thinks that the famous daughter's coattails are sufficient to make things she's done accompanied by daddy notable in regard to him. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
... if we could be spared this type of personally belligerent and accusatory edit summaries. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 20:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I'm requesting help with nominating the Svante Thunberg article for deletion (since I don't use an acccount).
My motivation for the nomination is that this article seems to fail the basic criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked on the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife or daughter (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR). I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for
receives 1 casual mention of another man sharing his name/surname complaining about traffic noise in Stockholm. ( [1])
A google search for
receives two mentions of other people sharing the same name, one inventor, another unclear, no mention whatsoever of acting. 110.165.186.42 ( talk) 08:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Somebody inserted a Spanish-language source (ElEspanol.com) as evidence that Svante Thunberg joined Riksteatern, but this is an obvious case of WP:CITOGENESIS. The article is a week old and is obviously based on what was in this (or the Spanish-language version) of this article. The link should be removed. I would do it myself but the article is protected and I don't have an account. It's also not really contested that he joined Riksteatern so I don't think the reference is even needed. 2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 ( talk) 11:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The result was: rejected by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
08:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
New article on redirect by Moonraker ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC).
PS Also see recent questionable activity in the article's edit history, the article's talk page and the nominator's talk page. SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Moonraker, does this hook seem appropriate? of course, i'll defer to any hooks you'd prefer to propose. dying ( talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1. dying ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
alt1: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not to "save the climate, [but] to save [his] child"?
Hi, Dying, your image is a photo, and I imagine the copyright belongs to someone who took it. This is a drawing and the copyright is mine. I see no problem with alt1, that was an interesting comment I found and added after creating the nomination. Not sure if you are acting as a reviewer here? If you are, I believe the reviewer needs to check all hooks and say if they are within the rules, someone else later decides which is the best one to go with. Moonraker ( talk) 04:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
if alt0 or alt2 ends up being accepted and you prefer it over either alt1 or alt1b, i can strike both alt1 and alt1b so that a promoter does not have to decide; i had only proposed alt1 in case alt0 was going to be rejected.my comment wasn't originally meant as a full review, but i don't mind doing one for you. however, i just noticed that although the article was created from a redirect, the redirect was created as the result of an afd nomination, meaning that another article had existed before the current one. as a result, i do not know enough about the finer points of dyk to determine if this article meets the newness requirement, so am pinging theleekycauldron for help. dying ( talk) 08:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC) [struck alt1b. dying ( talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
alt1b: ... that Svante Thunberg admitted that he "didn't have a clue about the climate", but changed his behaviour, not out of concern for the environment, but out of concern for his daughter Greta?
Hello, BorgQueen. I would agree with you that the final choice of hook is not up to the nominator. I do not think it is "entitled" for a nominator to want his or her hook to be reviewed. I must have checked out four or five hundred hooks myself, and I have never offered to review one I liked, but not the nominator's hook, which I didn't like. On whether being reviewed is a privilege, the system of QPQs means it is not a one-way street. The regulars here surely act in good faith, on the principle of "do as you would be done by". Moonraker ( talk) 01:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, since dying struck out both his alts, my ALT2 is the only hook on offer, and there is nothing to stop anyone at all from reviewing that. I see dying said that was "to make any potential reviewer's job easier. you are welcome to reinstate them if alt2 is not approved." There is also nothing to stop you or anyone else from suggesting any other hook you like. You have made a personal objection to my hook which you have not related to any DYK rule, and you are not willing to review that; I can only guess why that might be. As it happens, I see nothing "tabloid-style" about it, and it clearly isn't a BLP violation. If it were, you would have removed the facts from the article at once, and you haven't done that. We are simply waiting for a reviewer who will either agree with dying and me that ALT2 is within the rules or else find the DYK rule against it that we haven't seen yet. Then we can take it from there. Moonraker ( talk) 11:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Articles should be based on... published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, requires proponents to demonstrate that the source does in fact have that reputation. The absence of one simply does not count – otherwise, everyone would be a subject matter expert. The reason I bring up being cited by others is that WP:USEBYOTHERS would be a likely path to reliability for a source that has somehow had a breakout reputation despite the low counts I noted before, if you can demonstrate it. Another path would be WP:RSCONTEXT's statement:
In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.Can you demonstrate some kind of fact-checking or editorial control? Maybe this is the author's first venture into the book world, and has previously published in academic journals, making them a subject-matter expert? I'm not asserting that this source is unreliable or disreputable, I just can't find any evidence to support that it is reliable or reputable. Could you help me out? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Photos of wife and daughter in the article without any photo of subject. Reason (see edit summary): 2There is also a rule that an image offered for DYK needs to be in the article". Where is that rule? And what is this, just a Malena promo by Wikipedia? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 04:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)