Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clara Rosager

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Clara Rosager

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

Potential non notable person. Added text: I think current sources and the ones out there don't meet the significant notability criteria. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  • Found a source:
https://elle.dk/agenda/identitet/skuespiller-clara-rosager-om-sildemadderne-pizzaen-og-pastaen-der-har-formet/
It isn’t primary though. Do with that what you will.
Also found this:
https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/clara-rosager-danish-actor-interview, which is both reliable and secondary. Keep. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
this looks to be an interview of the model. And the second is another interview. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
https://loudandclearreviews.com/the-kiss-kysset-film-review/ is a review about the film.
https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-up-and-coming-danish-actor-clara-rosager seem to be a first person article ie promo. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks but
1) "is a review about the film." Yes. It's explicitly indicated in my !vote : "see reviews of the productions " -> Read all the reviews of the films she has a role in and you will check that she has significant roles in multiple notable. Ergo WP:NACTRESS pass.
2) "a first person article" What does that mean? That the journalist says "I"? Hmmm? Okay. She does not (she says We, once) but what would the issue be? The article is bylined: Eleanor Kittle If you don't like it, don't use it. Not sure why it should be considered promo. Do you mean based on excerpts from interviews? Maybe. Still, it's a secondary source. If you don't like, again, don't use. It's not needed.
3) Please do a BEFORE next time and explain on what grounds precisely you think a subject is not notable. Rosager is clearly a notable actress. You changed your rationale since we !voted. You should have made that clear per WP:REDACT. Now my !vote seems unfair to you while at the time it was very justified. Please amend that by indicating what and when you added things.
4) as for your recently added " I think current sources don't meet the significant notability criteria", it's confusing, especially if you pipe the link to WP:SNG (which she meets!!!!) : significant coverage is one thing; notability is another thing. Do you mean "WP:GNG because of lack of significant coverage"? Familiarise yourself with the jargon and procedures, please. ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
Why are you editing from an IP address? You seem to have vast interest to keeping the article around.
And significant roles? The show maybe significant, but she doesn't. That said I looked at Google news and I found articles about the movie / series she stars in, but not about her on her own. That said I did find 2 focus pieces
Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
"Why are you editing from an IP address?" Not from an IP address, with a temporary account. It's slightly different (technically anyone is editing online websites "from an IP address";D) Why not? Since when is that an issue? Why are you editing through a registered account? Since when is it mandatory? "You seem to have vast interest to keeping the article around." Sure, and for a good reason: I think she's notable. Thank you for the new source (the second one was the same one you had discarded earlier, but no worries). Of course her roles in the notable productions mentioned above are significant. Again, read the reviews or watch the films/series and you'll probably admit it. Have a look at the posters of two of her films. Before the Frost and Kiss. Can't you see her? Her name?
If you (have?) change(d) your mind, feel free to WITHDRAW this nomination.
Also, you have again changed your rationale since my last reply without making the timeline of your changes clear and my previous comment about the link to SNG that was (but is not anymore, now your link goes to SIGCOV) present in your statement is now confusing....In these conditions, I won't reply here anymore, it's too tedious. There's a good deal of coverage in Danish (some based on interviews), if you wish. Good luck. There's no way she cannot be considered notable and if the English Wikipedia does not consider her notable, then...well...too bad for the English Wikipedia. ~2026-35976-24 (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Irrespective of the article's merits in themselves, you are deploying arguments specifically designated as unacceptable in AfD discussions: "She's notable in [other languages]"; "there's no way she cannot be considered notable"; "I think she's notable"; "watch her films and see for yourself", which, by the way, is an invitation to apply our personal taste. Each one has zero value here, so you can see that even their sum adds up to not much. In Wikipedia, sources are everything. -The Gnome (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:NACTOR. In both En to tre nu and The Kiss she plays one of the two starring roles. Her parts in The Rain and 1899 are also significant, featured in main credits. I added some sources to the article. Zzz plant (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems like a super obvious choice to me - more than sufficient sourcing for an article. Needs to be expanded, though. Jishara (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
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.