Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svante Stockselius


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Svante Stockselius

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject fails WP:NBIO. This is just a media industry person doing his job, which occasionally involves appearing on TV, but being in the big box does not make one notable - not unless one is discussed by other independent sources, and this person is not. He had been interviewed twice, but per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are not high-quality sources as they are significantly self-published (subject talks about himself). I cannot comment on the 404 Swedish interview, but I looked at the English one in the Internet Archive and I am not impressed: it is short, it focuses not on him but on the EuroVision, and I do not believe such a short piece that's almost off-topic on him in a minor outlet approaches anywhere near making him notable. This nomination follows up on Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive), where his predecessor's bio was deleted, with closing admin concluding "Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG. This person has been the executive supervisor. Article can certainly be improved but that is not a reason for deletion. that another article about a similar topic is deleted is irrelevant per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid - WP:ITSNOTABLE - this is not a vote. I explained that his position is not a criteria to keep it (and your claim to the contrary has no backing in WP:NBIO), and cited an example of a similar bio that got deleted. This has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXIST, rather - SIMILARSTUFFGOTDELETED :) I also noted that the sources present do not seem sufficient for WP:BIO requirement. You do not address any of those points. In essence, your vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep notable through multiple independent sources. And nomination is clearly a vindictive response and follow-up to this from same nominator and ironically this article is mentioned within that nom.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean vindictive. We deleted one article about a non-notable subject, it stands to reason that this should open more scrutiny on other articles from the same series whose main claim to notability is having the same job - an argument that was deemed not sufficient in said AfD. Also, vindictiveness assumes I would be unhappy about something - why should I? The AfD concluded as I hoped it would. Lastly, how about you WP:AGF? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: There is a bit of canvassing going on here, which is rather unfair and needs to be taken into consideration, specially the way "votes" are being cast.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 09:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: I did not intend to comment on this AfD. For the record, as I said on my talk page from which I was "canvassed," my vote would have been to keep.  Mr. Gerbear | Talk 09:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Wesley Mouse, being supervisor of Eurovision is indeed notable. He is mentioned in third-party sources in English, with references noting his was critical of the UK's participation, appears to have been invovled in major changes connected with the contest , gave interviews or was quoted in press and in a Swedish article discusses his thoughts on a possible successor . The article as written may be under-developed, but should be tagged with  not deleted all together. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:29, 14 October 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.