Deletion of Nils Forsberg

Comment: Even before IP 104 helpfully added nine sources, my !vote still would have been "Keep".  First: |Notability is a property of a topic, not of an article, so presence/absence of sources is irrelevant for notability concerns, and this topic is clearly notable, regardless of what kind of state the article was in.  Second: |verifiability does not require the inclusion of sources in an article; it merely requires that it is possible to find them.  The article was |verifiable before any sources were found, it just didn't have any at that point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: sources suggest meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTIST)

Comment: Please see the further reading now included at the bottom of the article (all viable references that come from the other Wikipedias that you sneer at). He has been included in many other encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries and deserves an entry here. Next time try 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: part of a pattern of abuse of AfCH tools by an editor who appears to be trying to make a . It's fine to have a Draft you intend to work on but throwing unsourced drafts into mainspace without any references is not the way to do things
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: That this artist's works are in the Swedish national museum and the Gothenburg Museum is a clear indication that they will pass . In its current state the article is adequately sourced and {{u|Calliopejen1}}'s comments above point to many more sources available. This isn't a poll on Calliopejen1's approach to AfC reviewing. &ndash;&#8239
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NARTIST)