Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging of articles related to Sweden. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Sweden|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Sweden. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Sweden related AfDs

Scan for Sweden related Prods
Scan for Sweden related TfDs

Sweden

edit

Step on Me

edit


Step on Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed NSONG. All of the source are not reliable except for uDiscoverMusic, seems reliable but still insufficient sources. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Lovers (song)

edit


Legendary Lovers (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose redirecting to Prism (Katy Perry album) because this continues to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers (2nd nomination) closed with a verdict in 2017 to redirect to the parent album Prism. Nothing has come up over the years that would merit a main space entry, and it seems like wishful thinking to believe this track ever could meet notability criteria. A separate page frankly shouldn't have been recreated in the first place. Most citations used that aren't relying on artist commentary (which doesn't qualify as independent coverage needed to warrant an article) just contain a brief passing mention of the track (largely as part of reviews for the Prism album), which isn't enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Only one quality third-party source, namely ChartsInFrance, even gives a cumulative paragraph to the song itself. The rest are questionable-at-best pieces that contain mere speculation/fan wishes, and comments from fan accounts on social media aren't trustworthy per WP:USERG. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After first denying this at AFC, additional information was added and I passed it. Here is my assessment of the sources. There are many which aren't WP:SIGCOV, but between a few that are and with the charting - both 10+ years ago and now again in 2026 in multiple countries, this meets WP:NSONG.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Same as prior source, less content ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
No Album inlay is WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
Yes Yes Unable to access article. Used in article to demonstrate credits, so doesn't appear significant. ? Unknown
No Quote from someone who played on the song. Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No Site is largely a media aggregator with little editorial oversight. No No ✘ No
No WP:SELF, WP:PROMO No No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No No depth of coverage for song. ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No Yes ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No 15 Yes ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
No Speculation from primary source No No ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Same as prior source, less content ✘ No
Yes No 20 No ✘ No
No Song not mentioned ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
25 No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes More than WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
30 No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
terra.com.br/diversao/musica/katy-perry-pede-paz-entre-fandoms-e-cita-fas-de-taylor-swift-beyonce-e-lady-gaga,dbc2870dd93f2c21625a4bf025e880d3utewvxbd.html
 Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
No WP:MENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:MENTION ✘ No
No No 35 No Dead link ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG No ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 40 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARY No No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes 45 No University newspaper ✘ No
Yes No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 50 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Broken link ? Unknown
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 55 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes No WP:BLOG ✘ No
No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 60 No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes 61 Yes Indicates charting in several countries ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes 63 Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Not properly archived. Unable to see chart. ? Unknown
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes Shows charting ✔ Yes
Yes No Less than WP:100WORDS ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

WidgetKid Converse 04:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your assessment ignored how the Entertainment Weekly and MTV News pieces are going off artist commentary (and the E! link by extension does as well when rehashing Entertainment Weekly), which means they don't count as independent coverage required for notability. Even if NowToronto generally is credible (which I'm not sure about), it's a speculative piece that only contains minor mentions of the song itself and it doesn't help how much of that goes off social media comments from fan accounts that fails WP:USERG. As for charting links, you appear to believe that entering charts automatically indicates songs qualify for main space entries, which is a common misconception. Here's the reality: when there's only scant coverage (or none) of the song itself from trustworthy third-party sources, charts or lack thereof become entirely moot. The chart URLs listing peaks each only give a brief naming to the song next to numbers anyway. The 2014 link from ChartsInFrance does provide more than just a small name-drop, similar to the 2026 one, but using two or more pieces from the same author/publication isn't enough to meet notability thresholds. We would need other publications that aren't just giving minor mentions or relaying comments from involved parties. Having said all of this, accepting the page at AFC was misguided at best. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG. The guideline was changed in 2025. Album reviews can now be used and combined to support the notability of a song. The 2017 AfD is irrelevant, because it was decided under the old guideline. The fact that the song also satisfies criteria 2 of NALBUM certainly does not hurt its case. James500 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, even when counting album reviews, it still doesn't get enough depth from third-party refs to meet GNG. You also are conflating "may be notable" with "is notable" with regards to charts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(1) When counting album reviews, the song passes GNG easily and by a wide margin. The coverage is very extensive. (2) An article that is more than 43kB and 1,600 words certainly appears to prima facie satisfy WP:WHYN ("we can actually write a whole article" that is more than half a paragraph, a definition or a few sentences). [If I was to remove any sources or content that I thought might be even arguably or potentially objectionable, there would still be a reasonably detailed article.] (3) I have not conflated anything: I did not deny that criteria 2 is not an automatic pass. James500 (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2026 (UTC) I have just added the words in square brackets, which I wrote before the comment below. James500 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC) Words striked out in response to WP:ASZ. James500 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given how no credible sources reviewing the album dedicate more than a cumulative paragraph to the track, it's misleading to say the threshold is passed "easily and by a wide margin", and yes I did assess them for depth. As for a sheer size, per WP:ASZ we shouldn't blindly assume that by itself is an indication of meriting a main space entry. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Holmberg

edit


Tobias Holmberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Coalition Party

edit


Liberal Coalition Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Information Note: This merge proposal was originally opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.
Moved from Talk:Free-minded National Association § Merge
 – FaviFake (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Liberal Coalition Party

No reason to have separate article of Liberal Coalition Party. It is not real party, it is parliamentary caucus of the Free-minded National Association. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim that there is "no reason to have a separate article" and that the Liberal Coalition Party was "not a real party, only a parliamentary caucus" is only partly correct, but ultimately too simplified to justify merging the articles as identical topics. They were closely linked—but not the same entity. Liberal Coalition Party was the parliamentary political group operating in the Riksdag. Free-minded National Association was the national party organization that coordinated elections, membership, and extra-parliamentary activity. So it’s inaccurate to say the Liberal Coalition Party “was not a real party”—it was a real parliamentary party formation, even if it was organizationally dependent on the Free-minded National Association. Saftgurka (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't mean merging as identical topics, but merging as a subtopic of Free-minded National Association. Almost all parties in the world has parliamentary party AKA parliamentary causus in the parliament that can have theoretically separate title. And only article is common procedure. This also apply for entities with same meaning and name like only article for Likud as coalition, then and party too. That it was a real parliamentary party formation is true also as it was not a real party. Article remodelling is indispensable in both variants. ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Others

edit

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Sweden&oldid=1354585432"