Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Ljungman (3rd 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mikael Ljungman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard especially User:Bishonens comment [1] Govindaharihari (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nothing quite meets WP:GNG criteria. Subject was a political candidate, but not elected.  Subject contributed money to some political campaigns.  Subject was involved with a company that was involved in a more famous company.  Subject committed a crime.--Rpclod (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * References 1, 14, 15, 16 are patents, many duplicates, which give no indication of notability. References 2, 4, 6, 20, 27-31, 34-36, 39, 41-44, 46 all relate to the subject's prosecution and conviction for fraud and several are duplicates. Reference 45 only peripherally mentions the subject.  Reference 3 is a twitter profile which gives no indication of notability. References 5, 12, 17, 18, 25, 32, 33, 37 are dead links.  References 7 & 8 are identical and indicate that the subject was a Christian Democrat candidate, which gives no indication of notability. Reference 9 indicates that he is a criminal and a candidate. References 10 & 11 merely list the subject among other contributors. References 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 38, 40 do not list the subject at all. Reference 19 relates to a (failed) relaunch of Gizmondo in 2008. There is not enough here to meet notability standards. The subject was involved in a fraud that was covered in Danish press.  He was also an unsuccessful politician.--Rpclod (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - What's more, he doesn't have a Wikipedia entry in Danish or Swedish. If he's not notable enough to be written up in his home country, the place where all his business dealings and legal issues took place, he can't possibly merit inclusion in English Wikipedia. Add to that the amount of grief the edit wars over this puny article have generated and it's clear that it's not worth the effort to keep. Grifter84 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is some material for notability. Very hard though to reach consensus.Tore N Johansson (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) — Tore N Johansson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep -- even in reduced form, without the spammy primary references, it's clear there are enough sources to meet a basic notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator flattered me by referring to my earlier comment here, and yes, I don't think the subject is notable. The only thing that I can find reliabe third-party sources about is the criminal record, especially in relation to the parliamentary candidacy, so that's what the article needs to focus on if it's to be kept. But I don't think it should be kept: I call out, as typical tabloid exaggeration for effect, the claim in the Aftonbladet reference that Ljungman is such a well-known financial criminal. (I live in Sweden and follow the news, and I had never heard of him.) Aftonbladet tends to be sensationalist (see the criticism section of our article on it), and also has a political angle. It's part owned by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation, which appoints the paper's political editor. The Christian Democrats party, on whose election ticket Mikael Ljungman was a candidate, are unlikely to get good press in Aftonbladet. It's all in the day's work for them to emphasize that the CD party has a 'notorious' criminal in their ranks — especially at the time of the run-up to an election. We should be aware that this source has an interest in aggrandizing the criminal fame of Ljungman.


 * Mikael Ljungman was created as a promotional stub in 2008 by User:Truthmaker1. Two SPAs with equally promotional/whitewashing agendas have since been blocked as socks of Truthmaker1. Now there's a fourth SPA account editing the article, User:Tore N Johansson very much like them. (He's !voting Delete above; I formated your !vote for better visibility, Tore, hope you don't mind.) Yes, this article is more trouble to keep clean than it's worth. That's not a formal reason for deletion (my formal reason is lack of notability), but it weighs with me. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Delete per arguments of Grifter84 and Bishonen. Failing that reduce to a stub, but I don't see much hope for keeping the stub in a sensible state while the SPA is involved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * if you look at and remove the now blocked accounts, the result last time was a clear delete - Articles_for_deletion/Mikael_Ljungman_(2nd_nomination) Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article suffers from periodic attempts at whitewashing, but according to Aftonbladet, Ljungman is Sweden's best-known financial criminal, with significant media coverage in Aftonbladet, realtid.se, Berlingske and other reputable news sources. I do not think we should let the SPAs determine whether we can maintain an article on the subject. If necessary, protection and/or blocks of those engaged in worsening the article are more suitable options than just giving up and letting the SPAs destroy the page on a notable subject. Huon (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sourcing looks good enough for WP:GNG and WP:BLP, they cover more than one event (so there's no issue with WP:BIO1E) and the long-term nature of the coverage of his misdeeds is enough to meet WP:PERP. The special pleading above that we should ignore mainstream national-newspaper level sources because he has attracted political enemies (what politician doesn't?), because the newspapers have a bias (what newspaper doesn't?) or because his misdeeds were too sensational doesn't sway me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly enough. SwisterTwister   talk  06:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG which is meets.BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 17 February 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.