Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Haglund (real estate)


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Carl Haglund (real estate)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm ambivalent about the notability of this person, so I'm nominating it for deletion in order to get the community's consensus on it. Haglund has received significant coverage in reliable sources, almost entirely for his legal problems as a local landlord. All of the reliable sources are local: Seattle Times, The Stranger, The News Tribune (Tacoma), Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Met, South Seattle Emerald, and so on. There is no coverage of Haglund outside of the Seattle metro area.The coverage spans 5 years, and is mostly about legal problems (example headline: "Accused "Slumlord" Carl Haglund Promises to Improve Building Where Tenants Are Living with Roaches and Rats"). He recently began a non-profit foundation but it has no coverage at all. Even the bits of positive coverage of him refer to him as "notorious Seattle landlord Carl Haglund, after whom a 2016 law dictating new, more stringent building standards was named."I expect most cities could produce local coverage of local citizens known/notorious for various business dealings. Although editors have added content to keep it from being solely an attack page, I question whether there should be an article at all. So, keep or delete? Schazjmd  (talk)  23:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Schazjmd   (talk)  23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  Schazjmd   (talk)  23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Also posted at WikiProject Seattle Schazjmd   (talk)  23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mr. Haglund meets WP:GNG: there are substantial articles written about him specifically (although none about his property management company or his very young foundation, which should probably be removed from the article) from reliable sources, and the facts about him are verifiable. Haglund is known for his management of older buildings in some generally lower-income neighborhoods of Seattle, so the term slumlord is certainly loaded and non-neutral, but it has been used so many times by notable people and journalists writing for reliable sources that it is, indelibly, connected to him. I agree that he is primarily known in the Seattle metropolitan area, as like most real estate investors, he has concentrated his investments close to him. The amount of press coverage (largely negative, but some positive) given to Haglund is significant compared to most landlords — and indeed compared to most real estate businesspeople. Among the few non-Seattle-region news articles I could find mentioning Haglund is this one from Socialist Alternative, the monthly newspaper printed by Socialist Alternative (United States), a political party: “Notorious Slumlord” Withdraws Lawsuit, a Win for Sawant and the Housing Justice Movement. It casts Haglund as emblematic of exploitative landlords in the context of SA's campaign for housing justice. Haglund is also mentioned in this Jacobin article: “The Society We Are Fighting for Has to Be Free From All Oppression” which is primarily about Councilmember Sawant and the "Carl Haglund law," as she describes it. White 720 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete the sourcing here is pretty much all super local to Haglund. We have consistently held that getting local coverage for local activities is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete reason given above Thanks, (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As per request from nominator
 * Request an AfD clerk to relist this nomination. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp  💬  06:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to the coverage mentioned above, there is also non-local coverage from Next City, The Washington Post (for those who aren't aware, the Washington in "Washington Post" refers to Washington, D.C., not the state of Washington), and USA Today. In addition, there are a number of non-reliable sources that are not local, which also hints towards notability. Since t local coverage is significant and there is also non-local coverage, he seems sufficiently notable. Gbear605 (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep reluctantly. This is an edge case that should not be considered generally applicable. The coverage and the article are almost entirely negative but that is what the RS we have available are actually saying.  I'm not impressed by some of the advocacy links above (e.g., Jacobin, Next City) but WaPo is certainly a national RS and the article is substantially about Haglund. (Aside: The USA Today source is not since it is a reprint from local news station KING.)  Combined with the local coverage, this meets GNG requirements.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * comment I looked at the WaPo article and it's only a brief mention of Haglund in relation to naming the law; the WaPo article is all about the way the Seattle city government can use their new law to force repairs. I don't think that it has any significant coverage of Haglund. Schazjmd   (talk)  00:12, 19 September 2020 (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.