Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Colville-Andersen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA1000 02:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Colville-Andersen[edit]

Mikael Colville-Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Header added. The original nomination is a few lines down, at "I nominate article for deletion..." -- John of Reading (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate article for deletion as Notability guidelines do not apply to content within the article

Comment: Fixed and added new references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • "Copenhagenize Design Company client list". Retrieved 2014-08-08.self-published source of Mikael Colville
Comment: This is a page for the company in question. It supports the claim that the person works for cities and governments to see a list of cities and governments that have hired the company. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "The Choreography of an Urban Intersection". Retrieved 2014-08-08. Another broken link
Comment: Fixed and added supplementary reference to the study. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "Green Light Go - The Birth of Cycle Chic". Retrieved 2014-09-12. Flickr photo sharing service cannot be counted like notable as its Colville-Andersen self-published page
Comment: Removed and other references added. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "How Cycling Became Britain's Most Fashionable Sport". Retrieved 2014-08-08.

Few lines mentioning Mikael Colville-Andersen blog, but don’t show why its notable despite being just another cycling blog

Comment: The question is not why a blog is notable, but rather the person who started the blog and coined the phrase. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Carlton Reid: The Sartorialist on Two Wheels in The Guardian (June 26 2008), retrieved 25 August 2010

Entire article is about bikes and the latest tendencies of cycling. One interesting fact is that in the same article one can find the women called Caz Nicklin who is founder of cyclechic.co.uk, an online store and blog for fashion-conscious women on bicycles and launched the trend. Interesting that guardian refers to her first . To summarize Mikael Colville is definitely not the one who started the movement. If he is the big inventor of the coined phrase why Michael Colville does not own the domain cyclechic.com ?

Comment: This link supports the claim that the person was called The Sartorialist on Two Wheels. Domain ownership is not indicative of coining a phrase relating to urban cycling. According to my search, Nicklin acquired the cyclechic.com domain in 2010 and started cyclechic.co.uk in November 2007 - a year after Colville-Andersen started his work. The last half of the comment, above, makes this entire proposal for deletion sound suspiciously like character assination and a personal quest. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "Babelgum - Mikael Colville-Andersen, Cycle Chic". Retrieved 2011-11-01. Dead link
Comment: Fixed (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "The Origins of Copenhagenize". Retrieved 2011-11-01. Self-published company website which is not an independent source
Comment: Added references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Generation Zakka, retrieved 08 August 2014 the same company website
Comment: This link goes to the Danish Libary website (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "Dreams on Wheels". Danish Foreign Ministry. Retrieved 8 August 2014. Dead link but if you pay attention while opening it up you see the same company website http://copenhagenize.eu
Comment: Removed link and added new references (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • "Monumental Motion". Danish Foreign Ministry. Retrieved 8 August 2014. The same story, link is dead but the address line points you to: the same website http://copenhagenize.eu
Comment: Removed link and added new references. Google is your friend. Remember that. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

To summarize : this article has a clear overstatement tone and is mostly relying on primary sources material, 70  % of the article sources are from a self-published company website: http://copenhagenize.eu and company social profiles, the other 30% part are from primary source and content from death links.

Comment: Fixed (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a less extent on tertiary sources and primary sources. Primary sources are materials that are often written by people who are directly involved. Article written in the standalone event stating that Mikael Colville-Andersen started the cycling blog, sounds good but it is not notable, many bloggers write in the similar field and express their point on view on the web. Background in the urban design is very vague and unsubstantiated; I don’t see the connection between film making and the so called expert in urban solutions. It sounds like a self-proclaimed expert. Regarding the fact the he may have built the : bicentenary website for Hans Christian Andersen remains another dead link and I didn’t have enough luck to find it since the provided Link on website is dead. Ottocycle (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC) Mikeshoup, Phil Bridger — Ottocycle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I don't agree. This person is apparently well-known in his field. Otherwise he wouldn't have so many third-party links and references to him. Two TED talks, interviews in major newspapers on almost every continent in multiple languages. The reference to film is biographical. Compare this entry with other people who are similar: Bjarke Ingels. Jan Gehl. Even The Sartorialist. This article seems to match them for content, credability and relevance.
This request sounds a little too personal and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. (Luielle (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment I can't see any problem with this entry. Especially after the links were improved. This person meets the notability guidelines, in my opinion, and I agree with Luielle that it sounds like a personal vendetta. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the first. Sam Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is not a lot of willingness from the person who nominated this page for deletion to participate in the discussion or to comment on the revisions. I'll give it a few days and then remove the box at the top about deletion. Luielle (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the second. Sam Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has standalone topic. I don’t see any notability in that. Person doesn’t even own copyright rights on the "coined name" he is promoting. This article is very short-term oriented and as a result uses Wikipedia for promotional self-interest.
I would also put this article into Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity as the person doesn’t have any background in mobility and urban design, also no copyright rights on the" CycleChic" as his blog has only a sub name copenhagencyclechic.com . The so called proclaimed inventor of "CycleChic" not only infringe copyrights of the creator of "Cyclechic" but has no ways to proof that he is the owner or the inventor of the trend. We cannot count self-written articles. He is simply using it for promoting another movement and wants to get recognition for it. His methods are the one of scammers that want recognition that cannot be substantiated by any decent support.
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor) unfortunately it’s not our case. You cannot call Michael Colville independent on the topic as he doesn’t have any ownership rights.
More over this article has too many conflicts of interests. There is no evidence of the Mikael Colville-Andersen like a copyright owner. Neilc Bgwhite Arjayay Helpsome Phil Bridger Avocado Green451
It just a raw facts and everyone has a right to challenge that. Any of the provided sources cannot be called reputable and recognized in the industry. Anyone can hire blog to write about him. Ottocycle — Preceding undated comment added 15:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I stroke nom's !vote cast above. Sam Sing! 14:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this diff nom un-stroke his auxiliary delete !vote; I stroke it once again. Sam Sing! 23:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally agree with all said above, person cannot call himself trendsetter without even owning copyrights on the brand, domain etc. If everyone start to do self promotion by using someone else's efforts how will we end up ? Liu75 — Liu75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment It sounds suspiciously like you know this person and the other person you mention - Nicklin - which doesn't make you a very unbiased source. Do you work for this person?
On the one side there is Ottocycle, with his personal claims. On the other side, I see links to sources from news and media outlets that include La Presse, Tages Anzeiger, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Calgary Herald, Urban Times, Esquire Magazine, Der Standard, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Wall Street Journal, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Danish Foreign Ministry. All of which are more credible than some man who doesn't like the person in question. A quick search brings up the fact that a company called Cycle Chic/Copenhagenize based in Denmark owns the trademark for Cycle Chic in the US and Brazil. Another search shows me that this phrase "cycle chic" was first mentioned in January 2007 in a Danish publication. But the trademark question doesn't have anything to do with this page. It is about who coined the phrase and there are sufficient links. Your personal vendetta should be taken somewhere else. This is all just vandalism and wasting peoples time. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). I am changing the three of them to Comment. The above is the third. Sam Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t see any notability of the article of Mikael Colville-Andersen. The barometer of notability is whether people are independent of the topic itself. We cannot call Colville-Andersen as an independent individual to the topic, moreover self-published materials on the Copenhagenize site does not proof any ownership of copyrights. I would be happy if you could provide proof in the reference list. Regarding Nicklin, I came across her name in the same “Guardian” like the one of trend setters of the movement. Based on that it’s difficult to claim Mikael Colville notable for what he does. You can easily find plenty of information on Nicklin, who does the same thing, and even owns the copyright on the phrase itself. The entire article of Mikael Colville stands on hot air. He is not independent in the topic therefore it’s a bit too early to talk about his notability. Ottocycle (talk)
  • keep Somebody who gets regularly invited as a keynote speaker to major conferences around the world is quite obviously notable. The nomination is made in bad faith by user:Ottocycle, an editor with a single-purpose account. Would the closing admin please note that the other delete vote comes from an account with an edit history of exactly one (i.e. this delete vote), possibly a sock of Ottocycle. Schwede66
  • As an independent editor I have the right to challenge the notability of an article or to make edits on the articles if they are needed. Also Wikipedia is not a place to give personal comments. I found it strange why independent editors happen to be so aggressive instead of just providing proof and answering to questions. Please note that anyone has the right to challenge the article. I will repeat you once more that concerned article of Mikael Colville-Andersen has an obvious conflict of interests. Person is self-proclaiming ownership of phrase” Cycle chic” and doesn’t have any copyright on it. Infringement of that sort is an important issue. If he indeed has it, please provide me proof from an independent source, not self-published website or sponsored press, copyright legal notice will be perfect. Also I cannot manage to find proof of his education as urban designer and urban mobility expert. So far just a national film school which is really far-fetched isn’t it? Ottocycle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The nomination for AfD appears to be personal. The claimant keeps repeating his claims and does not repsond to the many improvments made. The article - especially with the recent improvements in secondary references - adheres to WP:GNG. The claimant has a specific issue with copyright. However, in the article it states that the subject coined the phrase Cycle Chic and there are eight secondary references to support this - many from major newspapers. Even one from as recently as 28 December 2014. If you do a trademark search with the phrase 'Cycle Chic' at the website of The United States Patent and Trademark Office - http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ - you can see that the subject's company does, in fact, own a trademark for the phrase 'Cycle Chic' in the United States.
  • This article does not violate WP:NOR - there are many secondary references.
  • It does not violate WP:NPOV
  • The claims of copyright do not reflect the text where the issue is quite clearly neologism.
  • A copyright can be searched on the US Patent and Trademark Office website.
  • The claim of self-promotion is grossly unsubstantiated.
  • Personal accusations of the subject "hiring a blog to write about them", etc are unsubstantiated and seem to suggest a personal vendetta - especially when most of the sources are mainstream newspapers and media like La Presse, Tages Anzeiger, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Calgary Herald, Urban Times, Esquire Magazine, Der Standard, The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Wall Street Journal, Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Danish Foreign Ministry.
  • The personal attack never mentions the subject's company, which has clearly been hired by cities and governments around the world to do the work stated.
  • The user Schwede66 even suggests Sock Puppetry is at play. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In this diff Saxovonhafnia cast four keep !votes (one of which was for Luielle). The above is the fouth. Sam Sing! 14:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting by yourself on Wikipedia several times for your article is not allowed. You voted 4 times for your own article. These are spamming techniques. Also fabrication comments from other users are prohibited and unprofessional. User Schwede66 you are referring to didn’t comment on discussion. You mention his name like a proof but in fact the original source see: 02:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Saxovonhafnia

Proof of copyright and trademark unfortunately cannot be found. One simple question why this person is notable? Is he unique in what he does? With a nicely put together CV you can go to Linkedin but not to Wikipedia. Mikael Colville-Andersen didn’t invent anything, is not unique in what he does, doesn’t own any copyright, and has nothing to be notable for. From both a legal and ethical standpoint this article provokes conflict of interests, the same sourcing you can find on the person famous doing the same thing Caz Nicklin and featured in the same articles of the press list you provided. Articles written in the style of tabloid journalism and remind gossip column with obvious junk food news features, trying to make story sensational and personalized. Ottocycle (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: According to the Wikipedia entry on Jane Jacobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs, she had no formal education in urban planning or design either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgriswold (talk • contribs) 16:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC) — Ewgriswold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: Colville-Andersen has been cited and published by numerous mainstream media sources.

Comment: I stroke the second !vote by Ewgriswold. Sam Sing! 13:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC):[reply]
  • Keep: Person seems to be notable, article may need some clean-up. --Palnatoke (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks to User Ottocycle! Because of his personal attack and attampt at character assissination on the subject, the clean-up and addition to the references has made this one of the best referenced articles on Wikipedia. If only all articles could be this well-referenced. One man's personal vendetta has improved one little corner of Wikipedia. I like the poetry in that. It is what makes Wikipedia strong. Saxovonhafnia (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 12:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sing! 12:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:BASIC. Comment: This AfD was not filed according to WP:AFDHOWTO, that's the reason it has been running for almost a month. I'll try to find someone who knows how to fix it, I donn't. And good luck to the closing admin with the above fragmentation and double votes! Sam Sing! 12:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See multiple references. See also comments that nomination is based on grudge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure that I understand the rationale behind this nomination but a quick Google News search turns up dozens of stories about the subject. The subject easily passes the bar for WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 16:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saxovonhafnia voted 7 times for her own article. It’s a scam. Also fabricating votes. Never Wikipedia editor is going to vote or give comments without signing his statement. Cannot find any edits Saxovonhafnia to other articles. Looks like sponsored work exclusively for Mikael Colville-Andersen. Also I would appreciate if people involved into conversation will not delete my vote. I made just once according to the Wikipedia rules. Article about blogger Mikael Colville-Andersen is far too much promotional. He didn’t invent and do nothing notable so far. If someone disagree with my point. Please tell me what is his notability in? Entire article build just on a wind, he doesn’t own copy right on what he is promoting, he is not alone in what he does, Doesn’t have an education in the field to claim himself Expert in the field. All stories are just fluff and press he is referring to is typical sponsored publishing which is even not dedicated to him. Article have generic topic and involve multiply personalities that have the same activity. Ottocycle (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ottocycle is case study material of a troll and I suggest that other editors don't waste their time responding to this nonsense. It's a clear-cut case, and nobody needs to give Ottocycle any further rationale. Spend your time improving Wikipedia instead! Schwede66 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 11:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Quite clear that Mikael Colville-Andersen is a notable figure under WP:GNG. He has been very effective in promoting active transport culture (including cycling) in multiple countries, with things he says being picked up by many journalists who work for a variety of national newspapers and other media. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mikael_Colville-Andersen&oldid=1138081235"