Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Ola Sand


 * 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 no consensus. A number of the Keep votes are flimsy and of dubious provenance, but there are enough from regular editors that there is no consensus to delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jon Ola Sand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails WP:NBIO. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. This nomination follows up on Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable TV executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely pointless !vote. Make an effort.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: White the article as it exists at the time of writing is under-developed, Ola Sand is well covered in independent media, most notably for his role with the Eurovision Song Contest, which brings up his name in searches across international media outlets from countries which participate in or broadcast the event. Article could certinaly do with some further content with citations, but he certainly appears notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you cite any source where his name is not a passing mention? Being on Google is not enough for notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Non-trivial third party coverage has been and will be added. This is the executive of the entire Eurovision Song Contest. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What? Where? You mean ? I am sorry, this is not verifiable, since you did not keep the original title, nor link to the article. If you can format it properly, I'd be happy to review it. But seriously, "Sand reportedly edged out 39 other applicants" - this is business as usual for any company, job or promotion. I think I edged out 30 or so applicants for my current job, too, which does not make me notable :) Not everything reported in news is sufficient for making one notable, see also WP:ROUTINE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would the first of the two provided references need "review"? Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they fail WP:V, and so we have to trust your judgement on them. WP:AGF is all fine, but as the other refs I can access do not seem sufficient, with all due respect, I'd like to verify that they are more then one paragraph mentions, press releases or poor interviews - as are the other sources presented here so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus argument for deletion of this article, if I understand it correctly is that simply because the user believes the subject work is non-notable makes it non-notable. It doesnt work that way.BabbaQ (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand my argument, of notability policy in general, so please, do not try to explain (ungrammatically) my position. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you clearly can not handle a AfD discussion. Per WesleyMouse reasonings you come on as vindictive to anyone not agreeing with you. And even using canvassing to get more input that suits you. Enough said. BabbaQ (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: good sources, being the executive of Eurovision is indeed notable. also per WP:GNG.that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BabbaQ (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do show me which part of WP:NBIO has the statement: "being the executive of Eurovision is indeed notable". Your argument is nothing but WP:ITSIMPORTANT and WP:ILIKEIT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you give me some better rationales for deletion either than a supposed lack of good sources. The article is filled with good sources from different medias. Third party. And also give me better rationales for deletion than "the article subject is not worthy". POV does never trump good sourcing and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep notable through multiple independent sources. And nomination is clearly a vindictive response and follow-up to this from same nominator and ironically this article is mentioned within that nom.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean vindictive. We deleted one article about a non-notable subject, it stands to reason that this should open more scrutiny on other articles from the same series whose main claim to notability is having the same job - an argument that was deemed not sufficient in said AfD. Also, vindictiveness assumes I would be unhappy about something - why should I? The AfD concluded as I hoped it would. Lastly, how about you WP:AGF? Also, seriously, independent sources? All English sources are from Eurovision press releases:, and I doubt the non-English ones are better - they are almost certainly based on them. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Fine sources already. I have also looked at more non-English sources (and some more English ones too), which are also good and not based on releases. Manxruler (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you kindly do me a favor and elaborate on how those sources are "fine"? As I said above, the only 2 verifiable (linked) English sources seem to be not independent, as they are related to the subject workplaces, and so are very close to press releases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The (non-linked) Norwegian-language sources are fine. I am completely willing to assume good faith in their regard. Even if I were to not AGF (and I do assume good faith with regards to the non-linked sources in this article) on the sources presently in place, a Google search has also led me to more Norwegian-language sources which also confirm the article subject's notability, are in-depth, and third-party.
 * Why the unwillingness to AGF with regards to the unlinked sources in this article? Are you saying that only sources that are easily accessible on the internet are verifiable? That's not how I understand our policy on verifiability ("Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access."). Manxruler (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Most of the keep comments have been challenged with credible assertions by the nominator. Additionally, there is a credible challenge raised by the nom to the reliability/significance of the sources/claims being mentioned by the keep !voters. It is suggested that !voters in this Afd may support their delete or keep assertions documenting specific reliable sources, as general assertions of notability or calls to the nom to agf undocumented sources may be discredited by the closing editor. Lourdes 02:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: I did not intend to comment on this AfD. For the record, as I said on my talk page from which I was "canvassed," my vote would have been to keep.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  02:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If specific sources in English (away from the EBU) are the issue, I can offer that he has been quoted, interviewed and referenced in the Australian media following Australia's inclusion in the Eurovision Song Contest as executive supervisor of the event, and the champion of expanding the contest to nations outside Europe.   . -- Whats new?(talk) 03:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What "undocumented sources" are you referring to? I can't see anyone requesting AGF on any undocumented sources. I could add more sources to the article, but I can't quite understand what you mean by calls to "agf undocumented sources". Manxruler (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies if the statement came out unclear. This was per your statement above: "Why the unwillingness to AGF with regards to the unlinked sources in this article?". Please do note that my re-listing note is not pointed at you. It is a general summary per my judgement of the assertions and the keep challenges. My personal opinion in this Afd is tending on Keep. I would suggest documenting the sources you are adding to the article or have already added to the article, here in this Afd to push the point through. At the same time, if you wish further clarification from me, please don't hesitate to ping.  Lourdes  03:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Okay, sure. No problem. I'll probably add some more sources, then. Manxruler (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject is covered extensively in RS . Meatsgains (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject has been covered through many reliable sources QubixQdotta (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability cannot be inherited and in any case, this is a WP:BIO1E where the subject seems to be covered only in context of the Eurovision thing. The spokesperson of a company, for example, will always receive coverage - but the coverage is always in context of the company. The quality of sources demonstrates it.
 * Abc.net.au Passing mention/quote
 * Sbs.com.au Another passing mention/quote
 * News.com.au Passing mention/quote
 * BBC Passing mention/quote
 * Jon Ola Sand new Executive Supervisor -Eurovision press release Not an independent source and is anyway a routine news of hiring of an employee
 * The Guardian A couple of quotes by the subject
 * Reuters Quotes by the subject again
 * nrk.no Brief coverage about taking over as the new supervisor
 * another nrk.no Quotes by the subject about Eurovision. Nothing secondary about the subject himself
 * Morgenbladet.no Cannot access this, but this seems like an interview. Not sure whether it is again in context of Eurovision or if it actually contains something about the subject himself.
 * The quality of the coverage is lacking. There is a severe dearth of reliable secondary sources which actually talk about the subject. What we see is the kind of coverage a spokesperson would get - notable because of association with an event. WP:WHYN requires that there should be enough coverage so that we can write a good article and not a WP:PSEUDO biography padded with a bunch of insignificant details. This is not happening here. As this is a BIO1E, I may be OK with a redirect to an appropriate article where the subject might be covered, but clearly this doesn't deserve its own page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. Several sources are of course about Eurovision but that is because he is working with the Eurovision project. That in itself is not "inherited". Simply because he has taken over the job from his predecessor, or the fact that it is about Eurovision, is irrelevant to notability. To claim that there are no good secondary sources is IDONTLIKEIT rationale and is irrelevant. Even more secondary sources has as well been added by user  after this article was put up for AfD. BabbaQ (talk) 12:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And where are these "good secondary sources"? Note that these need to actually talk about the subject and not simply quote him saying something about Eurovision. This is also a BIO1E btw because I don't see any evidence that the subject was notable before this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BIO1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The Eurovision Song Contest is the most-watched music event in the world, has a long and rich history in histroy, and thus it could be reasonably determined the event is 'highly significant.' The individual is the lead organiser of this event, and therefore overseas a number of important aspects in which the event is run, including policial issues between various European nations, and as I provided evidence of earlier, his decision to include Australia (a non-European country) into the competition for the first time, which was quite controversial internally as well as with fans of the event. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the "individual's role in the event" is decided by the amount of coverage, not by simply being a supervisor. We are supposed to create a new page for the subject only when the coverage about the subject's involvement in the event is so much that it cannot fit into the event article and it needs a separate article all on its own. That is not happening here. The secondary coverage about the subject is severely lacking and in most cases he has simply been asked to quote about Eurovision. That doesn't make him notable, but makes the contest notable. Any information about him can be easily covered in the event article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I accept that is your opinion. I stand by my claim that he is well covered in secondary sources, and his notable activities within the major competition and his actions and decisions warrant the keeping of this article, even if it could use better references and extended detail. This AfD should determine whether he is notable, and I believe his role goes a long way towards doing that. Similar points of view saw a keep result for the previous Eurovision Executive Supervisor. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to see some of these secondary sources. The AfD is not only for notability: it is for deciding how we keep the information: as a standalone page or as a merge/redirect in another article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And we have stuff like this in the article which makes it a WP:PSEUDO:


 * The actual content about the subject is very limited and should best be covered in a different article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The "challenge" posed towards the two non-trivial portraits on this person, which I added earlier, is utterly unsubstantiated and does not even reward a further comment. Geschichte (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment (changed from the word keep, seeing as my initial keep listed above still counts) I've added more sources, in the form of a book, a journal and several news articles. Further I can confirm that the portraits added by Geschichte are indeed non-trivial, seeing as they have (for reasons that I cannot really fathom) been challenged. Manxruler (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I just found a rather substantial Swedish newspaper portrait which I'll add in a little while. Manxruler (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe you just voted twice. I would be glad if you could point out the references which offer significant secondary coverage about the subject - the ones which actually talk about the subject and show why the subject's role in Eurovision is big enough that it needs a separate article to be covered. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I did, then I shall of course change my "Keep" to "Comment", but I believed that seeing as this was relisted, we had to start over. If that is not the case, and the previous votes still count, then I'll change the word "Keep" to "Comment" (which I've now done). I'd say the cites 2, 8 and 20 especially show why his role in the Eurovision is substantial enough for an article. Manxruler (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the bits you find "insignificant", I'd say his being involved in a train accident, with many people injured, and notable enough for us to have an article on it, should be mentioned. Also, I find that significant, long-term, relationships are usually mentioned in biographies on Wikipedia. Manxruler (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the 3 WP:PSEUDO criteria: (1) Yes, there are RS that are interviews and profiles on Jon Ola Sand, and he is not solely mentioned in connection with Eurovision. (2) Yes, Jon Ola Sand was the main focus of much coverage put forward. (3) Yes, the person is notable for other events outside Eurovision. He held numerous production and executive roles at NRK and TV2. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To make it easier for us, can you present HERE the links to back up those points? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been citations listed in this discussion, as well as the article both new and existing. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As User:Lemongirl942 noted above, the sources present are of poor quality. It is telling you are not even willing to present them here, you just keep saying "there are good sources" but when pressed about which ones are good, you refuse to answer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That's of your opinion that they are poor quality, I'm disagreeing as are others with these claims. As for the 'passing mentions' quotes from above, they were in response to a specific criticism that Ola Sand wasn't mentioned outside of Eurovision press releases, I didn't say they alone were sufficent, they were to demonstrate coverage in third parties. Sources within the article (many not in English) discuss or focus on him or his roles in and away from Eurovision. Source 8 is a rather thorough feature piece on his life and early career, for example. Not speaking Norweigan, I can't verify all of them, I'm assuming good faith for those I can't, and for those I can I see no reason why they show Ola Sand isn't notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet you still refuse to specifically name a single source that is high quality. I rest my case - all you are doing is repeating WP:ITSIMPORTANT with no backing in sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated source 8 as my one example. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, but that is an interview. Some secondary source which talks about the subject's role is required (for example, like this), where others are commenting about the subject and showing why the subject is important. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Source 8, do you mean ? It is brief and does not show much editorial judgement, so it fails WP:INTERVIEW test for being a quality source. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To User:Lemongirl942 first, I've got three different users pointing out three different variations on notability so forgive me for pointing to different things to different people. In pointing to that ref I was specifically arguing against breaching WP:PSEUDO. I have previously pointed to mentions of Ola Sand leading controversial voting changes as head of the ESC for the EBU as well as including nations geographically outside Europe in many previous refs. I'm not suggesting any one reference establishes notability, but there's plenty of references that establish this person is notable without breaching PSEUDO. To User:Piotrus, no I mean  which is [8] in the article as currently written. Regardless, I don't know how it can "fail" INTERVIEW, because I don't read anything about the length of the interview rendering it meaningless and that would still be relevant even as a primary source if not secondary. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is longer, but still is mostly primary. Doesn't seem like there is any analysis of the interview, it is just questions and answered. Being interviewed does not make one notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Mate, I didn't pick out that reference claiming it solely made this person notable, I was addressing the PSEUDO concerns. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Further to User:Lemongirl1942, are these better examples of more tradional secondary source mentions you're after:, , , . -- Whats new?(talk) 07:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- TV executives are not inherently notable, nor can they inherit notability from the shows the ran. The subject is being cited in the media, but the coverage is not about him. For example:
 * In an interview with the news agency Reuters in 2011, Sand launched the idea of extending the Eurovision Song Contest to a Worldvision Song Contest. In May 2015, Sand stated to the Norwegian public broadcaster NRK that the Worldvision idea was likely not moving forward, due to a lack of interest among countries outside Europe. He also cited the large cost of a worldwide song contest. In a 2016 interview with The Guardian he stated, "We are not looking at a sort of ‘Worldvision’ because that’s too complicated (...)". Sand stated to Danish media in 2016 that the European Broadcasting Union was instead developing plans to export the Eurovision concept by launching separate versions of the song contest in Asia and the United States, depending on the level of interest in the relevant countries. He was featured in the newspaper Morgenbladet in May 2012, where the focus was on the song contest and international politics.


 * If people want to hear Sand's thoughts on the show, they can read online news sites. Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS. It's not a collection of vanity pages on unremarkable TV executives who just go about their business. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you would vote to delete Robert Greenblatt and Leslie Moonves as well? Articles about television executives going about their business? There are more than just selective sources opponents seem to be fond of quoting. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant, but seriously, comparing a chairman of a media group to a middle manager, you can't be serious? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The latter, for example, is "Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive Officer of CBS Corporation", according to the linked article. Yes, obviously the same thing... K.e.coffman (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was responding to criticism of Jon Ola Sand being "unremarkable" and just going about "their business" which seems hardly different to articles on virtually any television executive. What makes an article on a Chairman, President or CEO notable when it covers them just "going about their business?" Furthermore, his role at the ESC is the highest possible so "comparing a chairman of a media group to a middle manager" is not correct. The fact he holds the highest office at ESC and a management position at a second company only further establishes notability. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it helps people make up their minds, I've now dug up an online version of the Aftenposten (which is apparently Norway' largest newspaper) piece used as reference 2: Skal sjefe over neste års Grand Prix.
 * Will have to check some things before using this online piece as the url for ref 2. Manxruler (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this piece was written before he got his present position at the EBU, back when he was "just" the NRK guy responsible for the Norwegian production of the Eurovision Song Contest 2010, held in Norway. Manxruler (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That easily satisfies WP:INTERVIEW as a reliable, secondary source. -- Whats new?(talk) 22:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good., is the online content the same as the paper version of the new article? Can I just add it as the url of the source? Manxruler (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note. Interviews are generally primary sources and while they can be used in articles, they might not contribute towards notability of the subject. Lourdes  03:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Interviews can be secondary sources in addition, where their is editorial coverage included, which there arguably is in that particular reference. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree with you on that, that there is editorial coverage of the individual within the source. I'm ambivalent of the depth of the same, yet do defer to your judgement on the same. Lourdes  04:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I'm reiterating my delete vote as the arguments for keeping the article have not been convincing. I also get the impression that there's a certain degree of "voter badgering" going on. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering the noticable improvement in the article's development and referencing since this AfD was opened, as well as further citations and points put forward, I would reiterate my keep vote. The subject is mentioned extensively through quotes, interviews, editorials and in connection with all matters ESC as the most senior person in charge for the EBU. The arguments about better referencing are perfectly valid, but I fail to see how he fails notability. These additional third party references may have been lost in dualing discussions previously,, , , , , , . -- Whats new?(talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets look at these sources:-
 * , Daily Express is so far short of a RS this is laughable
 * , Non RS - looks like a puff piece
 * , Interview - not independent. Its about Eurovision not Sand
 * , Doesn't look like an independent RS and is an interview about eurovision too/
 * , Um dunno about this source but the references to sand google translate to Grand Prix boss, Jon Ola Sand, think it's nice to reflect a fine composite Norwegian culture, as he calls it, but says ESC is no integration project. - We chose the best presenters we could find, regardless of ethnicity. The three suit each other well and have the right qualifications. Jon Ola Sand has no opinion on whether presenter choice will lead to better integration, but he thinks it is positive if it happens. That looks like an interview about Eurovision and not an RS about Sand.
 * , Fan site? Not about Sand.
 * . Looks like an RS - has an editorial team but is another interview and is about Eurovision not Sand.
 * So, put together we have a bunch of sources that are not RS or are not independent or are about Sand's work not about him. For a BLP we need to see printed profiles or biographies not evidence that he is doing an effective job as the mouthpiece for his organisation. We need to see evidence that shows he is notable as himself as NOTINHERITED applied. Interviews are by defination not independant and do not count towards the GNG. I haven't seen a single keep vote here that seriously addresses the need for RS. WE get insults (Thanks babbaQ for raising the tone), CANVASSing and pure assertions. TO keep this we need to see sources cites, sources that are independant, in an RS and not some tabloid rag and most importantly about Sand and not the place where he works. So my vote? Delete Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Source 26 from eurovision.de is the German-language site of eurovision.tv (English-language version). As for source 28 from Oikotimes, WikiProject Eurovision deemed them as unreliable, purely because volunteers can produce accounts, similar to how we do on here, and publish news. And for the record, even I am now starting to sway towards a weak-delete, although at present I am interested in reading more views before I change my !vote. I had made an alternative compromise during a previous AfD (noted above) by creating List of Eurovision Song Contest executive supervisors which may ease the tensions all-round, or even a sub-section either at European Broadcasting Union or Eurovision Song Contest providing notes on the role of the executive supervisor and a list. This sways away from BLP issues, whilst keeping what some are seeing as "important information" in-brief and on a more relevant article. Then my "keep" would be swing to "strong-delete".  Wes Mouse   T@lk 07:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion perfectly reflects what we should do here. Sand is not worthy of an article but could be mentioned in the main article if there was consensus to do so. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is a reasonable compromise, in fact it would allow us to save and reuse content of deleted articles. An article about the position would be likely notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * exactly, all of the content from deleted articles would be reusable on an article relevant to the event's positional role, rather than having multiple articles for BLP's who have only worked within that role and have no other sources apart from what they did in that role. That way all of these noms could easily become redirects if that was to be considered a more appropriate solution. We've already established the role is notable within context of the Eurovision events. However the people who have held that role are not as notable, but they could be listed within such article and showing the date/year they held the position.  Wes Mouse Talk 14:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am totally fine if this closes as a redirect to List of Eurovision Song Contest executive supervisors (with history intact) and the content is selectively merged to the list article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * From what I can see the main reasoning for those who !voted delete so far is that the sources are not up to standard. But the reality is that their are plenty of sources that are third party sources about Jon Ola Sand. The article is filled with good sourcing, from many different countries as well. He is in fact the current Executive Supervisor of the Eurovision. Svante Stockselius who held the "office" before him had his article Kept recently with much weaker sourcing, to be the executive supervisor position for the worlds biggest music competition event is notable per the Stockselius keep as well. Several other language Wikis have articles about Jon Ola Sand, and yes Otherstuffexists is a rationale but in this case it is yet another proof that his notability is not national or irrelevant as per any executive at any event/corporation. But that he is well known internationally. To state that he is not worthy of an article? worthy? If any executive supervisor is worthy, than he is. Those claiming that the sources are a reason for deletion are just plainly wrong, and again being the executive supervisor of Eurovision the worlds biggest music competition, as well as every other Eurovision event etc is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have still not read an Delete !vote here that goes beyond a POV of sources not being up to standard. (there are plenty of sources and third party sources, also from several different countries). And POV !votes like "this article is not worthy". I am still waiting for some actual reasonings that would justify deletion beyond IDONTLIKEIT. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You win today's internet for stupidly missing the point. This is a BLP. There is no sourcing that discusses Sand as a person rather then mentions and quotes from his role. Deleting for this is not a POV. Its a POLICY. Have you read GNG recently? Have you read BLP? Instead of throwing insults around how about demonstrating that the sources meet the GNG and discuss Sand not his role in the ESC? That;s the policy compliant way of dealing with this. Insulting people. Well that's just shitty lazy churlish playing the man instead of the ball. Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in your comment that are supposed to sound mature and reasonable? I guess not. Work your case instead of doing simple outbursts. Your comment above hardly help your case. In fact makes it null and void per vindictive and aggressive behavior. It is sad to see, really.BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BabbaQ, your comments here are immature. You could have countered the arguments by analysing the sources and showing that the subject has been covered outside this event. But you didn't. Your assertion of IDONTLIKEIT is also not applicable because many of the delete votes have done the hard work of analysing the sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He's been covered in multiple reliable sources, and is the executive of a major international talent competition. To me, this meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Long significant career. Major role in Eurovision organization. Very well referenced article. werldwayd (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well referenced and visited article about a significant person in European broadcasting. Article of obvious interest. --Ooo86 (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User's first edit in a year. Is there some canvassing going on? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep CEO of Eurovision, an entity with an intense public following, with correspondingly broad, enduring coverage of his career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not a CEO. The CEO of Eurovision is Jean-Paul Philippot. This person is just a mid-to-high level exec/manager, but not the CEO. If you look at "Eurovision_Song_Contest, he is mentioned only in the following section which describes his position: "Since 1964 the voting has been presided over by the EBU scrutineer, who is responsible for ensuring that all points are allocated correctly and in turn. The following are the scrutineers and Executive Supervisors of the Eurovision Song Contest appointed by the EBU: Jon Ola Sand (2011–)". This is not even saying he is the Eurovision main executive manager (frankly, the article doesn't say who that would be, even). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He is the person most directly responsible for management of the contest and second-in-charge on the reference group. His title may not read CEO, but that does not make him a "mid-to-high level". Further, you appear to be confusing the Eurovision Song Contest with the European Broadcasting Union. Philippot is President of the EBU, not ESC. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (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.