Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas östlund

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas östlund

Contested prod. Apparest vanity page by a non-notable programmer with just enough of a vague assertion of notability to avoid speedy-deletion. – iride scent 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything on that name in Google or LexisNexis. Bizzare. The "reference" is just to the Swedish front page of some university. I can't find anything supporting a single claim made in the article. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly, I would have just speedied this. Supposedly wrote a quicksort program, but not only is he not mentioned in the Quicksort article, there seems to be no results for his name +quicksort in Google. Possibly a hoax, and non-notable in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "was a huge success and being implented in systems around the world" is enough of an assertion of notability to avoid A7 IMO. If it's speedied, it'll probably just be resurrected; this way we can G4 it away when it resurfaces. – iride scent 16:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The supposedly hugely-successful and widely-implemented program gets not even a single Google hit, which is absurd for a computer progam. Quicksort itself was actually developed by C. A. R. Hoare about a quarter-century before this guy was even born. And the claimed souces go nowhere. This might not be quite as bad as something like "Jonas is emperor of the universe and can transform into a dragon and fly", but it's darn close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pages on the Karlstad University as asserted as source [1]. Nsaa (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. This is an artical in progress about Jonas Österlund. Improvements should be expected —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linauseslink (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous comments. I hope he doesn't have any siblings, or else we'll have articles about Jonas' Brothers. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any assertion of notability is unverifiable. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources to support notability. For what's worth, I haven't heard of him or his "theory" either. VG ☎ 14:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He claims an interview in the Swedish Aftonbladet, which is an abomination of a tabloid that is as far from a reliable source as you can get and still be called a news source. Doesn't fill me with confidence. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet is a ok source (as a newspaper), but I doubt the claim about the article printed there. Ask him to send an copy of it to OTRS so we get a OTRS number and a person understanding Swedish (Scandinavian like myself) can verify the claims. Nsaa. But seriously: why isn't this article Speedy deleted? (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. The guy is claimed to have reinvented electricity. There's no verifying this, but it's got to be an assertion of notability. Having said that, I've gone through LexisNexis and most other inventories of scholarly papers, and I have zip, nothing to show for Ostlund, von Ostlund, von Ostland,östlund,von östlund, or even von östland. This is a hoax. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 04:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the claims can be supported by reliable sources. --Kjetil r (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 October 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.