This page was only created after Gunnel died. And her death wasn't that notable, so why is she suddenly worthy of a wiki page, when she wasn't while she was alive? Arg Matey (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, but she already had a page on Swedish wikipedia. That her page was created after her death here is irrelevant. Your reasoning for deletion is flawed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I added an infobox. If we should not allow article creation after someon's death, then begin with doing away with everyone who died before mid-January 2001 when Wikipedia was started... J 1982 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Exactly. Flawed argument for deletion. And it should not have been reverted based on that reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it can, should and was redirected to her husband's article, before redirect deleted over protocol. --Quis separabit? 17:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- It was redirected on the basis that an article can not be notable if it is created after death. as asserted by the user putting the deletion tag on the article. That is an irrelevant argument for deletion. I have started a discussion at her husbands article. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
