Liv Bredal: WP:NOT an IMDB mirror.  The rest is a clear case of WP:INHERIT failure, with citations to a biographical dictionary and a who's who entry about her husband.  There is also a newspaper article about the marriage, a trait about a person which does not bestow notability.  The two remaining sources (Digitalarkivet) are census-related and are not significant coverage.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , Women ,  and Norway .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Liv Bredal is mentioned in various other books ( Film i Norge 1943 , Norsk film gjennom 35 år , Norsk filmografi: 1908-1979 , etc.) and the name appears 1,564 times in Norwegian newspaper articles.  The article is already better sourced than many comparable articles, and additional sources could be added.  Doremo ( talk ) 11:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Can you post the best three sources from independent reliable sources with significant coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth so that editor can eval them?  // Timothy :: talk 09:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Among the currently cited 10 sources, those would be "Liv Bredal blir bæring" , "Liv Bredal er 23 år og forlovet" , and "Da Liv Bredal ble Liv Caprino" .  In addition, 28 book sources , 24 magazine sources , and 1,564 newspaper sources are available altogether.  The 1943 biography Liv Bredal by Reidar Lunde is a significant source, but it is not available electronically.  Doremo ( talk ) 13:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 07:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Salvio giuliano 10:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : When I first looked at this, I thought this was a good faith but poorly timed AfD; it was undersourced, but new and since then sources have been added.  I still think it was a good faith AfD, but based on the author's sources above and in the article, their editing experience, [35] and their obvious language skill, I think this is a keep.  Based on their clear and concise response, I trust that this author did the needed BEFORE and found the subject notable.  If they had written a wall of text as often happens, I'd have passed on reading it, but they presented a (much appreciated) concise and direct response.  If someone with the needed language skills can dispute the sources above, you’re are welcome to ping me; my first question will be if you have the language skills and access to evaluate the author’s response.  // Timothy :: talk 08:18, 20 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep