Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jori Olkkonen


 * 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. Sources may exist and if they are found, this article would be a great candidate for WP:DRV v/r - TP 14:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jori Olkkonen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Video game music composer. Fails WP:BIO, no coverage in reliable sources. Terence7 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously Keep - Olkkonen wrote soundtracks for several Commodore 64 video games (published through major publishers through retail channels) and wrote a number of articles and programs for C=lehti and MikroBITTI (which were notable and widely distributed publications at the time), so I don't think WP:BIO or lack of sources is an issue. Not that much internet prominence or Google Books hits, but what can you expect from someone who made most notable contributions in 1980s and 1990s. The dead-tree sources obviously exist. (Can't add them myself because my own old copies of the magazines in question are half a country away. Sorry.) This index of old C=Lehti/MikroBITTI articles lists several reviews, program listings and articles by him, and I have a nagging suspicion this list is incomplete. Oh, and the program listings were also released as runnable programs in floppy/tape format - major publisher investing time and energy on a single person's work has to count. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response: The list of articles written by him&mdash;in a defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was only around for 4 years, I might add&mdash;does not help establish notability. WP:BIO asks if the person "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). I have not found significant coverage of him in reliable sources. If you think such coverage exists, the burden is on you to show it. Terence7 (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Defunct 1980s Finnish computer game niche magazine that was around for 4 years"? Nope, 6 years (1987-1991). It was published by a major magazine house and distributed nationally. MikroBITTI, on the other hand, started in 1984 and is still being published. What else do you require for a magazine to be considered a reliable source? Please don't belittle these magazines, they were very significant in their day. If you dismiss dead-tree sources, you may as well dismiss the whole requirement to have reliable sources entirely. Getting hanged up on being "subject of" articles is ridiculous. He wrote programs. They were vetted by the magazine editors and found to be sufficiently interesting to grace the pages. His works were the subject of the articles. On WP:BURDEN: Yep, I'm willing to add the sources, since you're unwilling to do so. Now, the burden on keeping the article alive is on you, not me - I'm not proposing articles to be deleted on unreasonable timeframes just because they lack sources that demonstrably do exist (or, if I bring them to AfD, they just get handwaved as insignificant "niche" publications). I already said I was willing to add sourcing, but it's not available to me personally, being in dead-tree format and thus a little bit challenging to access. I could do it, but I can't do it in AfD timeframe. What is the best course of action to ensure the article is properly sourced and we're actually building an encyclopedia? (Also, if you could describe me where you tried to look for sources, that would be immensely helpful. The fact that you didn't get C=Lehti's publication run right, even when it's listed in WP's article on the magazine, suggests this wasn't a particularly exhaustive search.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm getting "hung up on" that pesky requirement that a subject needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What you've described are articles written by the subject himself. That's simply not good enough, even if you can get the sources.
 * (And I didn't get the publication run right? 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991. That's 5 years, if you assume January 1, '87 to December 31, '91. I'm assuming it was less than that. In fact, it could be as little as barely over 3 years (December '87 to January '91). Indeed, the WP article itself says it was published "roughly every two months" and there were "29 magazine issues in total." That sounds like two and a half years to me.)
 * Perhaps a sensible approach, so that this content that you care about is not lost, would be for you to move this article out of namespace to your personal userspace until you can show that it meets the notability guideline. Terence7 (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Probably Finland's most famous video game musician ever. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Says who? Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per wwwwolf and JIP. ~dee  ( talk? ) 11:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're going to argue for a strong keep, you really ought to spell out your reasons more clearly. I've shot down every rationale that has been advanced for keeping this article. Terence7 (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete  Certainly some editors are making a claim, even a plausible one of notability. However, WP:NRVE, and I'm not seeing that evidence.  As a practical matter, pretty much anything we say in this article is going to be a reflection of the subject's self-published statements, not reflected through independent sources.  That's the reason we have WP:GNG, and why, short of better sourcing, I'm left to argue for deletion. --joe deckertalk to me 06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per joe decker. All articles, especially those on living people, require independent, reliable sources.  They are lacking here.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 21:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is a BLP that makes grand claims which are unsubstantiated. As others have said, there is one website interview in a 'tell us everything about yourself' format, clearly a non-independent source. Without even one independent, reliable, in-depth source about Olkkonen there is no justification to keep this resum&eacute;. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can't decide either way on this. On the one hand, I have had experiences myself (eg: with Matt Bielby), where the article was put up for AfD, and when I explained there were reliable print sources from the 1980s and 1990s, several people whacamoled it because they couldn't find it on Google in 30 seconds. On the other hand, even taking that into account, this guy doesn't really have seem to have done that much - he's certainly not on the same notability rung as Rob Hubbard who has had numerous commercial works published. -- Ritchie333  (talk)  09:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per the seven-year-old article on the Finnish-language Wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—I'll assume that the sources wwwwolf is talking about exist. The fact that they are off-line, possibly niche, or foreign have absolutely no bearing on my !vote – these are non-issues that don't detract from the reliability of the sources in any way.  However, the subject of the BLP seems to be the author of the articles in the offered sources. Writing magazine articles does not establish notability, being the subject of articles does. If this person were truly notable, then one could reasonably expect that a few magazine articles about him would have been written during his run as a programmer and author.  Since none have been offered, online or off, I am left to assume that he is non-notable.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 22:56, 10 April 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.