Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michiel Leijnse


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Michiel Leijnse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from Mr. Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establish notability). No significant coverage of this man himself. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Prod removed by article creator. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources in article or seemingly on the internet that pertain to the man.  Addionne (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag and explained on the talk page why- i find it highly annoying to see that the tag has been added again whilst I am still in the middle of adding to the article, and with no response to the issues i raised on the talk page. As i said on the article's talk page: ''Somebody proposed to delete this with the reason 'Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from My Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establihs notability). No significant coverage of this man as a person.'
 * Keep

That seems strange to me- the sources are reputable, including a leading Newspaper, two radio programmes and a TV documentary. A quick Google will confirm this. None of the sources are from Unilever or the man himself.

It is obvious that the sources relate to his work-as would the sources for most other business people (say, Steve Jobs- most articles mentioning his name would be related to Apple).''

I am not saying this man is as famous as Steve Jobs- but he meets the requirements for notability so why not include this short article in Wikipedia? Feahl08 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. Don't be annoyed by the deletion nomination.  We assume good faith here - even if we can't support the article's inclusion, it's not a reflection on you as a Wikipedia editor.  This debate facilitates discussion about the notability of the subject.  The process can be very helpful - if there is notability, it helps establish it and build the right references into the article.  If there isn't, it frees up editors' time to concentrate on other things! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject fails to meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Specifically, notability for this type of biography should first be tested against WP:ANYBIO.  In this case, the subject fails both limbs: 1.  There is no evidence whatsoever that the person has "notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"; and 2.  He has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." So what about the general notability provisions? This would require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  Clearly this is not the case.  There are a handful of news articles, all of which merely quote him as a company spokesperson.  This is neither significant coverage nor, more importantlt, coverage about the subject.  When the subject is quoted talking about the company, it is, by definition, coverage of the company and not the subject.  So, taking that into consideration, we actually have no coverage of the person at all.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks sources establishing notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - He may very well be an able marketer, but there is no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Being quoted in newspapers is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2010 (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.