Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannik Olander (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Jannik Olander
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Paid editing for someone who is at best a marginally notable figure. The two "references" are PR placements--pseudointerviews. where he says what he pleases not subject to any apparent editorial control, and therefore not RSs.  DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nomination. The two sources provided appear to have a close affiliation with the subject. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not able to find any other RS to base any article on so therefore should be deleted. Fails WP:GNG. Mt  king  (edits)  01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, this is strange. There are lots of reliable sources in Scandinavia about this subject that do not appear to be PR (as it appears to be bad press).  I was able to find them through the Google News Archives.  This article from Ekstra Bladet describes how the subject apparently "stole" their jewelry designs (see here for a Google translation.  His response to the situation is here, (see Google translation here.  There is also this Danish article about how his T-shirt line has had controversy in the U.S. and Italy (translation here. There are plenty of other sources, though none are in English.  That the page should not be a PR piece is obvious, but we don't delete articles even if they might invite promotional editing.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's the link to the JCK Magazine interview: . The article is part of the magazine's "Innovative Retailer" series, was composed by a senior editor of the magazine, and the magazine itself is circulated and requires payment (see: ). To DGG, are you certain that this is a case of PR placement (e.g. a paid advertorial) in which JCK Magazine was compensated for publishing the article by a PR agency or the person himself? That said, the questions from the interviewer are rather generic, whereas the responses are long and detailed, and the article does have a promotional tone. Perhaps DGG is correct regarding this matter, but proof by evidence, rather than by assertion, is preferred in these matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the wrong word, not PR placement, but based on PR, or more exactly, entirely PR, his own PR in his own words. One doesn't have evidence for this--evidence would be seeing the various f=draft wages of the document, and the correspondence between the parties and the recording of the interview. What matters is the result, & to judge that we use common sense and the comparison with what we know to be genuine reporting. As one of the acknowledge paid editors said to me at a recent discussion, almost every publication of this sort is to some extent based or motivated by PR.  I believe he used it as a defense of using such sources--I use it as a reason for rejection unless I see some evidence of actual editorial judgment. (The argument for notability would be that the news source chose him as interesting enough to be given space to tell his story. I would have made that argument 5 years ago, when lack of experience on Wikipedia caused me to be quite naïve about the extent of promotionalism.) DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. Also, note that it appears JCK Magazine discloses their content that are advertorials, at least those for their own events. For example, see . Northamerica1000(talk) 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as promotion. In fact there appears to be more emphasis on companies and products than on the person, which leaves the impression that this bio is merely an vehicle for corporate promotion. On a personal note, in spite of Wikipedia being generally inclusionist, I see no reason why the volunteer community should spend their time rescuing something that has been paid for and aims to increase the profit of a company. The onus for providing sources is on the creator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article certainly has taken on an increased promotional tone compared to its state at the time its first AfD discussion closed: diff page, and in many ways it reads like an advertisement at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable (both the individual and the company), overly promotional, and lack of significant coverage by reliable WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've substantially rewritten the article, and so I encourage editors to reexamine it. I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't seem to meet criteria for notability (i.e.WP:ARTIST in this case). Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jethrobot's excellent uncovering of sources. By the way, what is a Jethrobot?  Is that a good or frightening robot?  --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC) — 65 Edits Per Hour (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Blocked sock  Mt  king (edits) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep based on Jethrobot's revisions and edits. Possible conflict of interest here in that I voted to keep this before, although commenting on the borderline nature of the notability, and think Jethrobot did a good job with what can only be called minimal sources. But yes, it is at best a weak keep. Mabalu (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jethrobot. I think the sources here are reliable enough for our standards, and not just PR releases. If the article seems promotional, that's a reason to improve it rather than delete it. Robofish (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources being discussed are not sufficient to meet WP:RS or WP:BIO or WP:GNG.  The notability bar for biographies is much higher than what is being presumed here. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (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.