Talk:Kjell & Company

Untitled
I removed the promotespeak from the article, leaving it very short. I've now learned that the chain is significant and well-known in peripherals-buying circles—a neutral person I spoke with even called it "a skånsk Clas Ohlson"—I'm sorry if I seemed to doubt it in previous edit summaries! I'm restoring the stub template, as the article can certainly stand informational expansion, though the overly advertising type of sentence that I removed should not be used. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It needs sources to verify that it is significant though. It hasn't had any other than its own website since the article was created many years ago. Churchgoer251 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy and pasted from Swedish_Wikipedians'_notice_board


 * KjellFakta is obviously advertising, but what about Kjell & Company? Is this chain significant enough to have an article. It claims to have 12 stores, mostly in Southern Sweden. Uppland 07:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Tups, yes, I think it is significant enough. I removed the promotespeak from the article, with somewhat impatient edit summaries which I now regret, as a neutral third party (in fact my nerdy kid) has told me they're high profile in his (=peripherals-buying) circles. And we don't even live in the south! I quote: "You don't know Kjell & Company? But they're like a skånsk Clas Ohlson! And they just opened a big store in Stockholm!" He'd even heard of KjellFakta. (Hey, Clas Ohlson a redlink? Shame!) Bishonen | talk 07:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, Clas Ohlson AB should have an article. As for Kjell, sometimes these, um, corporate contributors (trying very hard to avoid the word "spammers"...) do themselves harm by producing ad-copy, which risks getting deleted, when we would be perfectly happy with a factual article on the company and its history. And nobody would ever suspect vanity if it was written that way. Uppland 08:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herman.jpg
Image:Herman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)