Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Sovndahl (entrepreneur)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional article on non-notable businessman. No significance that can be separated from his business. ,except for his business, and that also seems dubious. The references are the usual PR, even if some of them are published in sources which are sometimes reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about notability, and even if it was, you admitted that the references provided notability via the business. Nonetheless, I attempted to remove as much of the promotional tone as possible, and I don't believe there is much of a promotional connotation anymore. If you disagree, could you tell me which part is promotional? Potatornado (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no admitting notability "via the business" here because notability is not inherited. Largoplazo (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the main issue is how promotional its tone is. Is it promotional enough to merit deletion? Potatornado (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is the "main" issue. Articles about subjects found not to be notable get deleted. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then should it be deleted? Potatornado (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this discussion was created to decide. See WP:Articles for deletion to learn about the discussion process—how it's initiated, conducted, and concluded. Largoplazo (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the process works, but there was no consensus being come to. Potatornado (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought that the process was slated to reach its conclusion within a day, and that a consensus should already have been compiled and assessed at that time, then your understanding of the process is incomplete. Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete businesman lacking coverage of him to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the company - No independent notability. - Mar11 (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantastic Services need more discussion about which if any to cover.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not attempt to merge this article into this one? We can consolidate the notability. Potatornado (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nom. Fails GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional spam on a nn entreprenuer. The company is at AfD itself and is likely to be deleted. Appears to be a walled garden that should be razed to the ground. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to company - between this article and the company's, there are valid sources, but not enough on either one to support itself. Potatornado (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, fails criteria, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:47, 23 December 2017 (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.