Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Othar

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Othar[edit]

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

Clearly a biographical advert with multiple edits appearing to be from Jon Othar himself. Definitely not written from a neutral point of view and serves no other purpose than to use Wikipedia as an advertising tool for Jon Othar's Herbalife distribution. SvenDruzin (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— SvenDruzin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the person did indeed author 2 best-sellers.[1] I agree that the article seems rife with self-promotion, but that can be handled by Othar being cautioned to himself not edit the article and by others working through available sources to perform cleanup through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That statement might be true, it all depends on the editor's definition of a best-seller. I've never heard of any of his books, and a little Googling only reveals a handful of blog reviews and used bookstore listings. There's no formal definition of a best-seller here in Iceland, and given the spirit of the article I can imagine the concept being stretched pretty far to fit the self-congratulation theme. But OK, I can agree that a person that has written six books might be notable enough for an article, but then that article should be about the writer of six books, and not "an acclaimed scientist/author/director" who "has been instrumental in improving the dietary habits and health of Icelanders" and has also "been a pioneer in reforming the Icelandic broadcasting scene with his involvement in Stöð 2 (Channel 2-Iceland)."--SvenDruzin (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add that the solution of "Othar being cautioned to himself not edit the article and by others working through available sources to perform cleanup through regular editing" seems unlikely to make any difference since A: Jon Othar himself seems to be pretty much done writing his autobiography article and B: even in Iceland he is a nobody so no one will care enough to invest any significant time into rewriting the article. I barely cared enough to start this deletion process.--SvenDruzin (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an individual who read the wikipedia page and who is not connected to Jon Othar, I find it incredibly dismaying that SvenDruzin claims that Jon Othar is using Wikipedia "as an advertising tool for Jon Othar's Herbalife distribution," when this was never mentioned in the page (supposedly as written by him). Jon Othar was a public figure around the time that Stöð 2 was founded and before for his work in nutrition (and, yes, his work was phenomenal). Albeit it is incredibly hard to find sources online, though this is the case for the majority of Icelandic individuals and their histories, if you look through the old newspaper records in Iceland about him he has been debated and congratulated and contested time and again. I will try and get on implementing more sources, because excluding him from Wikipedia, while other much less notable Icelandic individuals are currently on here, is a travesty. Also, what a snide comment about the 'best-seller' wording, the books were written two decades ago, before the internet even became available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarjons (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as G11 and possibly somebody else will want to start over. The article is an example of almost pure self-promotion. I thought about trying to rewrite it, but this time I admit I'm defeated. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G11. If DGG can't fix it, nobody can. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (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.