Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Ljungman (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   no consensus. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mikael Ljungman
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No reliable English language references to support notability for inclusion in English Wikipedia. The best references that contributors have come up with since the last AfD discussion are all blogs and LinkedIn pages. The last AfD concluded that references were available to support Wikipedia's rather low bar of notability, but failed to reach a conclusion due to withdrawal of nomination. I have to question the value of having a biographical article for every patent submission (before approval) or person to come before the courts for tax fraud. Fugu Alienking (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - for reference, this is the article including all the more dubious sources. Despite them, I still can't tell how we came up with Ljungman's birthday or his four children. Ljungman is claimed to work for Media Power Inc (and he did a few months ago), but they removed his bio from their website. In Fugu Alienking's preferred version, the article is a stub with hardly a claim for notability, unless tax fraud reported in newspapers counts. In the extended version, there's more stuff, but most of it with dubious sources, some of which aren't even about Ljungman and don't mention him. Huon (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, after reading the Swedish language references and the English translations and Blog cover the articles, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provides mere trivial coverage. Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject.  Linkedin may be a weak source; it’s not in itself dubious though. The source substantiate several articles relate to Ljungmans business background.  With cross-reference to his partner Carl Freer s Linkedin page you could also find information about current occupation and involvement in Media Power Inc.  Articles about the company do also make it notable whisch should reflect on Ljungmans bio.  There are several cross-references about   the technique and systems Ljungman seems to work with that also could be found in the patent applications presented.  The applications also refer to mobile applications in a field rapidly growing.  From a notability point there is more value in information that headlights more than one angle. Gizmondo and Media Power are not a Swedish product or entity. The patent applications is in UK and USA, Ljungmans early connection with Gizmondo Europe ltd is also an English and US connection, inclusion in English Wikipedia seems therefore natural. Sorry to say I find Fugu Alienking :s contribution more as a personal vendetta against Ljungman and Freer. It’s becomes more obvious reading his/hers contribution on Ljungmans partners Wiki as well.--Needlepinch (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't researched this enough yet to make a recommendation, but I would like to point out that there is no requirement for sources to be in English, or for article subjects to have a connection with an anglophone country. The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers only to the language in which it is written. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. While it may be acceptable to base parts of the article on Swedish sources, I think that there need to be some English secondary sources to support notability, otherwise the barrier to editing by English speakers is too high. I'm not sure that even the Swedish sources count as reliable secondary sources, as they are uncritical interviews in online-only business publications. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Maxim  ( ☎ )  21:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep ,The main issue seems to be if you could allow a weak reference such as LinkedIn together with other sources. To my knowledge a weak reference could be used if not the whole article is based on that reference or similar references. In this case the source doesn’t contradict the other references in the article. The source substantiates several other articles. The secondary issue seems to be if Ljungman is a part of Media Power or not. It was established that Ljungman was one of the founders. Even if the company web site substantially has changed you can’t erase the fact he was a founder. There have been no other information sources, other than speculations by contributors, substantiate that Ljungman is not a part of the founding company. Instead we can find, from alternative weak sources that both Ljungman and his partner Carl Freer is still with the company. The third issue seems to be if a Ljungman founded company should be mentioned in the article. It seems natural to mention a company where the patent applications, mentioned in the article, plays a central role. The company is also notable because of the collaboration and donations with and to several universities. It doesn’t matter if Ljungman is mentioned or not in this article. The company is a product of Ljungman. The article about Ljungman in a whole, do not preponderance the company against the other sections.--Needlepinch (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd ask you not to add multiple "keep" comments; only one !vote per person. And while the article has severe issues, this is not the place to reach consensus on them. This discussion should determine whether Ljungman is a fitting subject for an article at all, something I doubt. All the most reliable sources but one mention him only in connection with tax fraud and bankruptcy (and in effect only in connection with one event, which doesn't bestow notability per WP:BLP1E). If we were to reflect that focus in the article, it'd have to start with "Mikael Ljungman is a failed businessman and a convicted tax fraudster." If we don't reflect that in the article, we're using a mix of self-published material, sources which don't mention Ljungman at all, and the one positive newspaper article to paint a rosy picture of Ljungman. You say Fugu Alienking has an agenda, but just as well one might say that you have an agenda, too. Huon (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The main issue is not whether you can include Linked in along with other sources, but whether those other sources are of sufficient quality and coverage to support notability. I'm not sure that an uncritical interview and several mentions in passing is enough, especially when they are all in Swedish (some with unofficial translations available on a blog). --Fugu Alienking (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment.Off course I have an agenda Huon. I declared early in this so called debate, after I have noticed a clear “blackwash” of Ljungman and other related parties, to try to be the other part and contribute with some kind of balance. My intention is not to “whitewash” or Rosy Ljungman, and I have several times changed my initial statement towards your contribution and Fugu Alienking.  Fugu Alienkings “blackwash” and reluctant to contribute anything in the article that could consider to be or be interpreted as a positive was also the reason why I’m in the first AfD also brought up Keep or Delete. I have followed Fugu Alienking comments on Ljungman, his partner and other related sites and its more than obvious that he or she have an agenda, and the agenda is to “blackwash” or have the page deleted.  You are entitled to your opinion of course Huon and could argue that Ljungman is a failed businessman. I do think that this opinion should be handover to the reader. The other sources are sufficient to support notability. Neither provides mere trivial coverage, and the one in Realtid is almost solely about Ljungman. All are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. How can Fugu Alienking or any, including myself, know or argue about if the articles are uncritical or not? The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers only to the language in which it is written.--Needlepinch (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the supporting references are not substantially about this individual and the ones that do address don't seem to really meet WP:RS. Note that I read some Danish so managed to follow some of the text but by no means all. The real need in this discussion is to establish the reliability of realtid.se as a useful sources. Editors more familiar with this source them I am would help by commenting specifically on that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of proper sources; such sources as there are don't establish any real notability. Brammarb (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThere are several sources, newspapers, online news and business magazines and journalist blogs. All sources mentioned are 3rd party sources. The sources cover the subject in general, partly and by notice, they seems to meet WP:BIO.--Riverside blue (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2008 (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.