Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per Bylund


 * 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 keep as basic notability has been established through references in article and here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Bylund

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails Notability (people). The article does not explain why this person has any notability outside of his subject. He has apparently edited some book and designed some "anarchist logo", but not acheived much more that would deserve an article of its own. Slarre (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion.  Lord Metroid (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Secondary source creiteria has been fulfilled: Per Bylund has been covered by independent third party, Sveriges Television covered the Walk for Capitalism 2001 mentioned in the article which Per arranged. (Added reference to the article) Lord Metroid (talk) 09:44, 28January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's just one source. Furthermore, PB is not the the main subject of attention in that news clip. /Slarre (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. This is an easy one. Being on the news once doesn't make someone notable.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has been noticed by Per Bylund and discussed at anarchism.net's forum


 * Comment Per Bylud may not measure up to the standards here at this established source of information. This is funny. Who does measure up? How many people need to be tortured to measure up? How much murder is enough? The standards would have to be raised to credit this ‘source’ of information with an association to Per Bylud – good luck with the revenue scheme. The competition is knocking. Joseph Thomas Kelley (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Bylund on Anarchism.net argues for his notability in the discussion on anarchism.net's forum, I think it is only fair to bring forth his argumentation for the opportunity to be taken into consideration so I quote: I would say this "Slarre" is trying to get my name off the Wikipedia. He could easily make a google search, check my CV, or even read the Wikipedia article to see that I do fulfill the criteria. But something tells me he is not interested. I don't intend to spend any time on this, but consider for instance: Wikipedia: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Just a few examples from Google:,, , , , , , Everything isn't available on the Internet, of course. Most of my TV and radio appearances (e.g. a debate w/ Per Wirtén on EU and voting, a debate w/ Goran Greider on ideology, and a discussion with Alexandra Pascalidou on reasons not to vote) aren't on the media corporations' respective web sites. As for my own stuff, I would say it is pretty easy to see where it has been published (apart from the web, in a number of journals and newspaper in Sweden, the UK and the US). But let's have a quick look further. Wikipedia: ...local political figures who have received significant press coverage This is certainly true and it is pretty obvious even from the Wikipedia article; I was in local and regional news media every single week for two years, and appeared occasionally in national ditto as well. I even received a prize for this effort, which is evident from my CV: the Gosta Boman Scholarship. Does that mean it is recognized work? I don't know. But, all this is only "evidence" if you are really interested - not if you are mostly interested in deleting. - Per Bylundsource I couln't add to quote due to parse error, Maybe somewhat fervent on my part to post what Per had to say regarding the deletion proposal but I edited the article extensively(relative to my own standards) Lord Metroid (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Keep The design of a logo that has international usuage and recognition, makes him worthy of a mention, and this is far from his only role in politics. I had found this article informative, and had stumbled upon it whilst reading about many other left-libertarian topics, and it helped me locate other useful infomation outside of wikipedia. The article is short, concise and relevant. Lostsocks (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: All those links prove nothing. Most of them are articles written by Bylund, so they hardly qualify as secondary sources. Two or three of them are blogs, which hardly qualify as reliable. The other ones are just brief, rather trivial, mentions. That is no way enough to establish notability. The fact that the aricle "is short, concise and relevant", that it "helped [you] locate other useful infomation outside of wikipedia", or whatever doesn't matter, because it doesn't make the topic any more notable. Please base your arguments on the notability criteria.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - as a default. I can't speak swedish and am concerned about systemic bias of anglophone countries and websites as it is. Notability is likely though more solid sourcing would help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Could be notable" is not a reason to keep. Notability has to be proved.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No I am making an assumption on what I read. If it looks likely on the balance of evidence, then I am happy for the time being until more sources can be found. As opposed to unlikely in some other AfDs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Notable anarchist figure. Absurd to delete. Zazaban (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was gonna stay out of this one, but I really wish we could hold ourselves to higher standards than blanket statements of "notable", without providing any evidence from reliable sources. Murderbike (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I really didn't have a whole lot of time when I wrote that. Zazaban (talk) 00:18, 6 February 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.