Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tor Ingar Jakobsen


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a rough consensus to Delete and the copyright questions seal the deal. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Tor Ingar Jakobsen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sources are either from his website (source 1), written by him (source 5) or provide no significant coverage (sources 2-4). No indication of WP:NMUSICIAN. Also a likely WP:COI creation, as the author created the two articles in the first paragraph (since deleted). Google search also doesn't show anything useful. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Please assess expansion of article since nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Norway. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!  18:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Have added more links and content to make the article more relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morpfhoby (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)  — Morpfhoby (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: How on earth can you use his own website as a source?!?! MaskedSinger (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yes, his website has been used as source for things like his year of birth, and which town he was born in. All the other main achievements, as his published books, rewards, productions and work for musical theatre are covered with other sources as newspaper articles, press reviews, publications from publishers etc.I therefore still think it should be kept. Morpfhoby (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify Smells like COI, should be come from AFC process. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Subsequent edits such as Special:Diff/1184661405 have lifted more sentences straight from the autobiography and attributed them to some other source. This isn't original writing. This is a foundational copyright violation of an autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the publicity photograph is filched directly off the subject's own copyrighted WWW site. Let's see about the article text, with the subject's own autobiography on the left and Special:Permalink/1184636506 (the article as nominated for deletion) on the right:


 * Thanks for your input. I have deleted the content where his website was the source, and therefor also the content that did quote his homepage. I therefor think the copyright problem and reliable source problem now should be solved. Morpfhoby (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete 3 gnews hits says it all, fails WP:BIO. Possible promotional article by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 gnews hits says it all – no, not really. Offline sources could potentially exist. See also the National Library's 600 newspaper results for his name, which is just as useless a gauge for notability on WP. This article isn't something I'm particularly invested in, so I'll let someone else do the digging here, but it is likely that there are enough in-depth sources about the subject to warrant inclusion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Daniel (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2023 (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.