Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanson3


 * 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   merge to  Johan Neerman. a merge to Johan Neerman seems the best solution for now, with no prejudice against re-expansion to a separate article if things develop. doncram, you seem to understand the situation, so would you please  do it?  DGG ( talk ) 08:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC) (This also applies to Johanson3 scooters.)  DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Johanson3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway. The information that was in the article before I revised it was machine translated as well as extremely poorly sourced. I am also nominating the following related page because it is basically the exact same article:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are not there to put a personal statement. Articles have all necessary proof from verified sources listed below  and for your information Company has registered branding, patents and concept and manufacturing the products now. Julia Williams123   — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I would really appreciate if before editing notes or making groundless opinion you would rely on reliable sources without violating content.  Julia Williams123  — Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete both. The only more or less reliable source is a BBC blog, other refs are either dead or copy press releases. Lemnaminor (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Johanson3 articles
I cannot not agree with Lemnaminor as articles have more than BBC blog. Please have a look at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://goodcrowd.info/post/93407293659/belgian-transport-designer-johan-neerman-announces http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Also check company data at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 Johanson3 product holds several patents on innovation and technology. You can find this information by doing your homework on google. This proves the uniqueness of the product and its originality. Before expressing unvalid statements and give personal opinion please do your research on the subject. I would like to encourage you also to have a look at the story of this company and their background http://archives.lesoir.be/neerman-dans-le-metro_t-20000819-Z0JKRZ.html/ http://archives.lesoir.be/100-vagues-a-lames-l-irresistible-legerete-de-l-alu-les_t-20030307-Z0MWVF.html http://neerman.net You can find more information in the books, journals, printed editions and archives noted at the page of the owner of the company as it was created in 1967 and internet at that time was not so popular. Nominator  Brightgalrs  appears to have no expertise in the field and seems to focus on ( please follow the link) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brightgalrs which makes his statements suspicious of any decent contribution to the page -	Regards, -  Julia Williams123  — Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Johanson3 and related articles
I am really keen on removing AFD template and closing this discussion. For the following reasons: I also would like to ask the administrator to close this discussion and relist article.  Julia Williams123  — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was open for more than 7 days already and didn’t receive any  negative feedback from the other editors (In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors adequate time to participate)
 * Written article has all necessary proof of trustworthy; also status data of the company is currently available on internet and the state website. If nominator   Brightgalrs  cannot find it I encourage him to have a look at http://kbopub.economie.fgov.be/kbopub/toonondernemingps.html?ondernemingsnummer=837049028 (A "speedy keep" outcome is appropriate when the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption)
 * I see just negative erroneous that they indicate that the nominator  Brightgalrs  has not even read the article in question.


 * No personal attacks please: don't take these discussions personally. Going through your sources:


 * shows that the company exists and is registered in Belgium - that in itself is not sufficient to indicate notability
 * neerman.net is a primary source
 * both lesoir articles do not mention Johanson3 at all
 * the gizmodo and techfieber articles are largely identical and appear to be German translations of the press release announcing the company's indiegogo campaign
 * the yahoo 'article' is that same press release
 * goodcrowd.info allows anybody to submit articles 'in the form of a standard press release': it does not seem a reliable source
 * industrie-techno.com is basically a French translation of the company's press materials. The article is placed in their design and mockup section, indicating that there is no real product yet.
 * That leaves the BBC blog as the only more or less RS and leads to the conclusion that this company and its proposed product are not notable. In addition, seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject: this user almost exclusively edits articles on the Neerman family and companies, or inserts pictures of the Johanson3 into vaguely related articles.--Lemnaminor (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)



I cannot agree with you. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified  it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view. It seems that you keep disliking professional publications for more personal reasons than professional ones as you have not read them thoroughly. Regarding comment of “not notable”. Company and product johanson3 own several international patents. Do your homework on google it will give you some more thought. Among of all reasons for deletions I cannot find any that will be related to the articles. I see just a person giving his personal views by trying to impose weak conclusions about the company. Facts are there. Apparently you did not check good enough the reliable sources that I have provided you. I understand that may be you have your personal opinion and strong feelings about and the inventor. It would be greatly appreciated if you would try not to violate content.

Regarding my close connection to the subject I’m quite happy that you understand that I write always in the same field of transportation also please note that nor  Brightgalrs  nor Lemnaminor (talk) have no experience in writing in the field of transportation or any close related field. See bellow
 * List of predicted dates of the end of the world or similar events
 * List of people who have claimed to be Jesus
 * Forest swastika
 * Calculator spelling
 * Manhattanhenge
 * Arcaicam Esperantom
 * James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher
 * Dick Assman
 * I, Libertine
 * Naked Came the Stranger
 * Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D
 * Wilhelm scream
 * Ferret legging
 * Small penis rule
 * Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan

Regards, -  Julia Williams123 
 * First, it doesn't really matter who actually nominates an article for deletion. Second, the references are utter crap end of story. The first sentence of the article "Johanson3 scooters are made of a range of  5 light electric stable (trikes)with 4Kw maximum that have high payload capacity and the natural extension of the pedestrian due to its high sitting position." is supported by  and  as references.  Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1]  04:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that the BBC blog counts towards notability (after having jumped through hoops to view it as BBC Worldwide is not accessible from the UK, apparently we are not part of "the world"), but by itself it is not enough to establish notability per WP:N — "multiple sources are generally expected".  All the rest of the sources are company listings or PR fluff.  This may be notable one day, but right now it is WP:TOOSOON.
 * I would also like to comment that the long diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponents is just not acceptable here. It is cluttering the page and doing your case no good.  It is the strength of policy based arguments that count, not what articles the participants have been editing, or anything else about them personally. SpinningSpark 19:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

List of the articles listed below has nothing to do with PR fluff. They are from wellknown proven international resources. I like the way you guys critisize my article but you don’t know what you are talking about. Also regarding your comment about “diatribe by Julia Williams123 against her opponentsis just not acceptable” I consider that I have my right here like the author of the article to explain my work by adding valid arguments. If you do have an issue with innovation in mobility why using Wikipedia for it? You can complain to its inventor who owns intellectual property on his innovations. You seem to be rather desperate in trying trying to push always the same song by trying to impose personal views and issues with the topic  which has nothing to do with the quality of the content of these articles which brings all the necessary proof of their reliability. Here is some statement of notability 1.	This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never creadted before. More over its patented for various technologies. Please pay attention  its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and  reputable  independent media sources. And article complies fair and balanced Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. They are not advertising a product their just tell why its notable and innovative. Before Writing just about BBC look  at http://www.gizmodo.de/2014/09/09/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter.html http://www.techfieber.de/2014/08/31/johanson3-das-allround-fahrzeug-fuer-den-umweltbewussten-staedter-video/ http://www.industrie-techno.com/le-velo-solaire-qui-veut-remplacer-la-voiture.32282 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/innovative-approach-personal-mobility-launches-111400050.html Vorsatz William (October 2014). "Dreirad mit Solardach". Photovoltaik 99: 96. I hope this time I answer your questions and I dont see the point to keep going with the same idea as article contain not just BBC source. Read it carefully. If you don’t like the article or the product please note its not a reason to not recognize notability. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. Best regards, your devoted  Julia Williams123  — Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.I don’t like to repeat myself but I would like to explain you once more regarding this issue of notability. Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before despite notes from  Brightgalrs. Please note it’s not a designer’s concept or just idea. These are 5 engineered products by johanson3 company.
 * "Its notable simply because never anyone delivered a product like that before", that's not how Wikipedia defines notability and is not a valid argument for keeping a page. Please listen to what other people are telling you, no one is proposing deletion because they don't like the product, that is irrelevant and another pointless attack on fellow editors.  Lemnaminor has already made an assessment of your sources and I am going along with that until there is some evidence to the contrary. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1.	 This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career. I think it will be totally insain to challenge work done in the past by Johan Neerman and company Neerman Consulting which designed major transport systems worldwide. 2.	 The product represents a unique accomplishment in the field as it was never created before. More over it’s patented for various technologies. Please pay attention its not passing along random gossip like you may say it’s the famous publications and reputable independent media sources. Also the last but not the least note. Look at Notability there stated: “Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.” Please keep in mind that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Williams123 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep (struck duplicate !vote).Please read ones more definition of notability by Wikipedia and its connection with my subject :

“Regarding pointless attack on fellow editors )))” Its what I see in my case. I just replying to justify and protect my article nothing personal. “This is a failed IndieGoGo project. It probably never should have been created anyway” Brightgalrs “In addition, Julia Williams123 seems to be a SPA with a very close connection to the subject” Lemnaminor

I see just negative erroneous and my fellow editors don’t look at the facts. Who is attacking? Best regards, your devoted  Julia Williams123    — Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG and Lemnaminor's compelling analysis of the sources. Note: It appears that the same account was used to vote keeep twice.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot agree with Lemnaminor's point. LeSoir article is destined to speak about the creator behind the johanson3 series. If you do understand French you will see that the inventor has notable background by designing various transport systems in Europe which is recognized worldwide. Following that some statement of notability This range of products are significant involvement by a notable person (in our case Johan Neerman ) and is a major part of his career.

The Name of Johan Neerman is clearly identifiable in this article. You can also follow that the same person is the creator of the range of the johanson3 e-bikes and the creator of the company. The link to Website provided proves that the company exists and in good standing. It is not a company directory that you may consider not verified it’s a government website with all data registration. Regarding articles in Gizmodo, Techfieber, Yahoo, Industrie–techno, photovoltaic and others they were all written by different editors. You can find the name of the editors. Yes indeed they all talk about johanson3 like a new way of transportation but they are not like you call identical as they are put by different editors and in different languages nothing to do with a copy of press release. All links provided above proves the information to be only of a professional nature with no personal point of view.  Julia Williams123 ] — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated comment added 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge, probably to Johan Neerman or to a new section Johan Neerman and leave redirects behind, and possibly protect the redirects from editing by non-administrators. The product seems pretty cool.  However it is wp:TOOSOON to be covered separately in Wikipedia, as there seem to exist only press-release-type coverage, not reliable source (wp:RS)-type reviews by others.  If the product is so great (which it does look like it might be, in my non-professional opinion), then it will eventually get wp:RS type coverage.  But Wikipedia needs to follow, not lead, in giving out info, and should generally state what secondary/tertiary sources say about something.  The main characteristic of the product is that it has a great design, attributed to designer Johan Neerman, and asserted by Julia Williams123 above to be "a major part of his career".  So, why not create a section about this great design in Johan's article.  And redirect from Johanson3 to there, for now, at least until separate notability of Johanson3 becomes established.  This preserves edit history, better for the record if/when notability is established.  I then suggest that Julia Williams123 or other editors plan to create a future, better article in the Articles For Creation wp:AFC process, in the future, to replace the redirect, eventually, assuming reliable sources are given so that AFC editors will approve the new article.  I think this is best... -- do  ncr  am  00:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree with the "merge" suggestion. This particular product is not yet out of the starting gate, so adding the information to the page for Johan Neerman (where other products are also listed) gives it a holding place for now. Should the product gain notability, it can be separated out. LaMona (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2014 (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.