Ulrika Björklund: The article literally just states that she's a person who exists, while completely failing to state what political offices she may have held -- but politicians are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and are only presumed notable in certain specific major offices, so an article that completely elides what offices the person even held in the first place clearly doesn't cut it.  Additionally, the fact that there's no article about her at all on the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't bode well, since there's just no way that Swedish editors would completely overlook her if she were actually a holder of any NPOL-passing office.  In addition, two of the three footnotes here are just address directory entries, which are not reliable or WP:GNG -building sourcing, and the only one that comes from a real media outlet appears to suggest that she's just a local figure in a small town, which is a level at which we would need far, far more than just one GNG-worthy source to deem her notable enough.  Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to contain a lot more substance than this, and a lot more sourcing for it than just one media hit and a bunch of phone books.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden .  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , AFAIK this person has been elected at local (municipal and county) levels only, which doesn't suffice for NPOL, and the sources fall well short of GNG.  I had a quick search and found a few secondary sources, but they only cover her in the context of her crossing the floor to a different party, so again not enough for GNG.  There could be more if one digs deeper, but it's not particularly easy as the name is fairly common.  If the author can produce more and better sources, then I'm prepared to reconsider my stance, but as it stands this seems non-notable.  -- DoubleGrazing ( talk ) 17:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NEXIST , passes the WP:GNG .  A simple two minute Google search shows her switch from the Moderates to the Centre Party due to disagreements with the former's embrace of the Sweden Democrats' anti-migration politics received national media attention in 2022: Swedish Television (public broadcaster) Swedish Radio (public braodcaster) .  Feature profile in Nerikes Allehanda : [41] .  Behind a paywall, but profile on her role in education policy: [42] .  Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: meets WP:GNG per Goldsztajn's links. WP:OTHERLANGS should also be kept in mind, and the fact that there isn't an article in the Swedish Wikipedia yet is not relevant to determine notability. -- NoonIcarus ( talk ) 12:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:ONEEVENT regarding the party transfer, and the notion tat she has a "role in education policy" seems like a major exaggeration.  Not every person who was the subject of a feature in a local or regional newspaper is Wikipedia material.  I have access to the Swedish Mediearkivet, but on the basis provided here, it's not at all compelling to search for gems in newspapers.  This looks like a regular person who is active in her community and doesn't like a political party.  Geschichte ( talk ) 13:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have multiple, multi-year, sigcov RS, this satisfies the GNG.  We may assess the quality, scope or reliabiliy of sources, but I'm not aware of any community consensus that allows us to criticise the editorial decision making of the reliable sources.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 04:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It is a point of interpretation how significant a given piece of coverage is.  And my interpretation is, among others, that the significance is being overplayed regarding the education piece.  Geschichte ( talk ) 07:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have four reliable soruces with SIGCOV in relation to the subject (two of which deal with one issue).  An editor's opinion of the importance of the coverage (ie editorial decision making) is not relevant.  The second Nerikes Allehanda is reporting on the subject's intentions with regard to education policy; whatever one's views on the contents, it's not our job to assess their importance.  Even if you take away that piece, we still still satisfy BASIC/GNG.  Regards, Goldsztajn ( talk ) 02:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - there are five reliable sources with SIGCOV in relation to the subject.  Also per WP:GNG.  Her work as CEO of SJ is highly notable.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 18:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: For a stronger consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  02:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  The claim of being the CEO of SJ is pathetic.  The given source states that Ulrika Björklund is "the director of SJ Contact Center in Ånge ".  Not included in the CEO list , although SJ consists of several different parts.  The Ulrika Björklund of SJ is not even the same person, it's a different person née Sahlin and born in Timrå !  My opinion of delete stands until the misinformation is sorted out.  Geschichte ( talk ) 08:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Maybe close as draftify ?  In that way, the editors who find gold in the aforementioned references can work this into the article, showing its actual importance beyond WP:NEXIST - and also to facilitate a necessary sorting out of things to avoid throwing other people named Ulrika Björklund into the mix.  Geschichte ( talk ) 09:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: But more polishing needs to be done to it.  Micheal Kaluba ( talk ) 14:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Maybe consider the possibility of draftification.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Goldsztajn.  More work clearly needs doing but I think this article meets GNG.  -- Grnrchst ( talk ) 08:13, 1 December 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