Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik Enblad


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Patrik Enblad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced single-sentence BLP. Previous PROD was removed because the article had a single external link; unfortunately, this link is to a primary source, the (now defunct) bank's website. I could not find anything about this guy online, aside from passing mentions in articles like this one. I do not think he meets WP:GNG, or that significant coverage exists to have even a single-sentence stub about him. If someone can find good sources where I have failed, I will withdraw this nomination. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Like the nominator, I have been unable to find any independent and reliable reporting on the man, let alone significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC) /// Neutral for now pending further source analysis. See comments below. MarginalCost (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - per Julle's source summary. MarginalCost (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are a couple of decent articles in for example Dagens Industri, available through Mediearkivet, going beyond routine coverage. I've expanded the article and added sources. I didn't know much about Enblad before I started digging, but the articles I found easily convinced me of his notability. He's been at the heart of several important cases and deals in Sweden, not least during his tenure at HQ, and is apparently one of the main subjects of at least one (non-fiction) book, Den stora bankhärvan by Carolina Neurath, about the scandals at HQ. I haven't read it, but I found this article in Resumé (magazine) naming him "one of the main characters" so I'm sure there's plenty more to add in addition to what I've found. /Julle (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping JPxG, Alexandermcnabb and MarginalCost, if you'd want to take a new look at it. /Julle (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Julle There's more, I agree, but I don't think it slips him past WP:GNG unless there's significant news coverage of the attempted bank takeover with him noted as a key player. My Swedish isn't up to the search (and it might be he belongs in Swedish WP but not enwiki). Being a litigious suit who doesn't like journalists doesn't, sadly, make him notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ligitation, of course, is not relevant here, so there's no need to refure it as an argument for inclusion – it's the fact that he's one of the main subjects of a book by a respected journalist that was the point of that link. /Julle (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I would consider the Dagens Industri articles enough to pass GNG. /Julle (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Julle, these are indeed sources I didn't find before. Like Alexander, I am not completely sure they meet GNG. (Though, as a corrective to Alexander, I would say that Sources do not have to be available online or written in English, even on the English Wikipedia.) Going off the current article footnotes, sources 1 and 3 are behind a paywall, and my local library database doesn't have them. I am not totally convinced they are more than routine coverage, which DI has a lot of. Can you specify what exactly is in these articles about the man beyond just announcements of position changes and share sales? Footnote 4 is just routine coverage. Footnote 2 is a little stranger, with some mix of anonymous gossip and quotes from Enblad himself, which doesn't seem enough to me. The book, if published, could be significant, but I can't seem to determine if it was ever published. The article, from 2011, says it was due to be published 3 months later (August 2011 presumably), but I can't seem to find it on Amazon, WorldCat, or other general searches.
 * Nonetheless, I am now not at all confident in my delete vote, so I am changing to neutral for now. MarginalCost (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll try to take another look at the DI articles later to address your question (I don't have access to them right now, as I need to be logged in to Mediearkivet) but regarding the book it was published in 2011, by Norstedts. /Julle (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, so, one of them is a half-page which goes through some relevant personal history. The other is slightly shorter, but still focused on him as a person, not merely in passing and also with relevant background, not just what's happening there and then. /Julle (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll check out the book the next time I'm at the library, too, which seems very relevant here but I doubt that will happen before this AfD discussion is closed. /Julle (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Number of sources is irrelevant (except perhaps the barest minimum of two to meet definition of "multiple" in GNG), quality of available sources still under discussion with consensus still developing.
 * Delete 4 sources still not enough IMO to meet notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Julle’s assessment that the sources are good and pushes this article to WP:GNG. That the number of sources would not indicate notability is a rationale I do not buy.BabbaQ (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ew3234 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is largely inherited from Hagströmer & Qviberg. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against restoration to draft if additional sources of substance can be found. BD2412  T 06:18, 14 May 2021 (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.