Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hjalmar Armfeld

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hjalmar Armfeld

Unnotable silversmith. I tried to find reliable sources, but came up empty. Therefore, he fails WP:N and WP:V Tavix (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN. Nothing important in Google or Clusty. No academic refs (e.g., Historical Abstracts). Unless somebody can show that his Faberge contribution or his connection to Johan_Victor_Aarne (apparently a marginally notable goldsmith, but that may be open to question as well) was significant, there's just nothing I can find to suggest any notability. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does his connection to Johan Victor Aarne have anything to do with his notability? Tavix (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably nothing. Just opening the possibility that if Armfeld, for instance, played some central role in Aarne's enterprise, then there may be some notability there (on the grounds that a key craftsperson or tradesperson in a notable shop might himself/herself be notable). Jlg4104 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable references. On an unrelated note, this is the second deletion discussion I've participated in during the past week that involved someone named "Hjalmar." Graymornings_(talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, nice memory there... Tavix (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subjects of this vintage can't be expected to turn up in Google searches. Why did the nominator or nobody else refer to the person most likely to know of offline sources, i.e. the article creator? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? If they are notable enough, there still should be sources. Tavix (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (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.