Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Borg


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Andreas Borg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article, by a brand-new account with no edits to other articles, looks very smooth and finished, even well-referenced, at first glance. However, when reading the article it quickly becomes evident that the subject of the article is not actually notable. He is a software designer who has worked on art projects which have been featured in various publications, but his name is not in any of the secondary sources, except for trivial mentions (see below). As we know, Notability is not inherited. An actor can have a small part in a notable movie - that doesn't make the actor notable. Similarly, a software designer can be part of the team behind a notable artwork - that doesn't make the designer notable. The "Awards" section does not mention any award given to Andreas Borg, only to the installations he has worked on. His name appears in the list of names here and here, which is simply further confirmation that he is not notable. bonadea contributions talk 11:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've left a comment on Acarolnc's talk page making them aware of the guidelines on autobiographies and conflicts of interest, and inviting them to disclose any CoIs. But I agree with the proposer: delete as a non-notable piece of spam ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete this is the worst kind of garbage article/puff piece, where references that on first glance appear to be ok don't even contain a mention of the article subject when one investigates! I checked and deleted a half dozen that had no mention whatsoever of the article subject. Notability not inherited, and clearly not established by refs given. This nomination is a good call. I suggest delete and salt, given the extreme effrot someone has gone to to deceive readers.198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the most egregious entries was the claim in the infobox that one of his notable works was the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. !!! 198.58.171.47 (talk) 02:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. References do not match notability claims in article. Ifnord (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete the article has been edited since nomination. There's currently only one reference, and it doesn't support any claim about the subject of the article.  The earlier claims included references such as  that don't even mention the subject of the article.  I see no reason to keep this article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:18, 20 November 2017 (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.