- 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 no consensus. no consensus whether it is notable enough after three weeks JForget 22:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
John Elvesjo
- John Elvesjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person does not appear to be particularly notable; it appears to read like WP:RESUME rather than WP:N. This person has won some awards, but I'm not sure that the awards are notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I also have minor problems with the lack of inline citations and the non-English references. Overall, I simply think that this subject does not meet general notability guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 12:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Borderline case. I wouldn't say that any of the awards are sufficiently notable to confer notability on their own, but taken together they could possibly be sufficient. Tomas e (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Due to concerns over notability and lack of reliable sources. Awards appear to be minor. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Weak keep. - Pack of awards showing. Carrite (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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.