Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Ljungman

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The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Ljungman

~~Fails WP:BIO, severe lack of reliable sources.~~ The best we have are two Swedish newspaper articles, neither of which significantly covers Ljungman. The article translation (which is cited more often than the article itself) is unreliable - apparently the translator added comments or even entirely new information. Huon (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the two Swedish language references, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provide mere trivial coverage, and the one in Realtid is almost solely about Ljungman. Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after reading the Swedish language references and the English translations and Blogg cover the articles, it seems clear that they meet WP:BIO. Neither provide mere trivial coverage. . Both are reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Needlepinch (talk) 1:18 PM, 31 May 2008 (EST)
speedy delete non notable man. former chairman of a bankrupt company, geesh.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article was created as a vanity article for a non-notable person and there are NPOV issues with the current main contributor assuming ownership of the article and using the article as a promotional coatrack for his companies and colleagues. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the tone above, I have reviewed WikiEtiquitte guidelines and realize now that this was phrased in an uncivil manner. I have serious doubts that the references that are publicly available about Ljungman are of sufficient quality and quantity to establish notability and construct a proper encyclopedic biography. A web search will turn up a few articles in Swedish by Hans Sandberg on realtid.se (an online-only Swedish business paper), some of which he has translated to English on his blog. However, reviewing the articles written by Hans Sandberg about Ljungman and his partners in Gizmondo, they seem to be mostly uncritical interviews with the subjects themselves, so I am not sure they meet the neutrality standards of Wikipedia. Other articles on realtid.se about Gizmondo show a very different bias to them, but none go into details about Ljungman. The only references I can find that even mention Mikael Ljungman, and aren't written by Hans Sandberg just mention him in passing as being involved with the Gizmondo relaunch and do not provide any content suitable for an article beyond that. I conclude therefore that a brief mention in the Gizmondo article is all that is warranted. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article may merit a small spot on Swedish Wikipedia but not this site. He is just not that notable outside of Sweden. Artene50 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete, Keep if the article could maintain a balance between black or white. There are obviously NPOV issues with the current main contributor Fugu Alienking assuming ownership of the article and using the article as a "black wash". Delete if it fails to maintain a balance. Wikipedia it's not a forum of either white or black wash.--Needlepinch (talk) 12:38 PM, 1 June 2008 (EST)
Withdraw nomination - additional sources have been found, though he seems to be more notable for defrauding the tax authorities than for the Gizmondo connection. The sources are largely Swedish, but that doesn't diminish his notability. Huon (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.