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.  Sandstein  20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Richard Perlhagen

Richard Perlhagen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Questionable notability, and no apparent credible assertion of notability - at least not enough on a read through to solidly tilt toward to the keep. Listing for community input. TomStar81 ( Talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep Agree there is no one thing to hang notability on, but he has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over the years and not just for one event. For instance "Refinery bid throws spotlight on investors" in The Sunday Times back in 2014; in connection with Monarch Airlines; and recently a great deal relating to British Steel so that he meets WP:BASIC where "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The effect is cumulative. Some of it is offline so I assume you have not read that. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete and Salt as we should not consider WP:BASIC or any other damningly trivial and unconvincing when it's still clear this is advertising and that's enough to delete, especially since this was speedied once before, and there's quite honestly nothing here expectingly substantial, so it's enough to show there's nothing in fact better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC) reply

It's not advertising or promotional. Philafrenzy ( talk) 10:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete this seem to me to be more like advertising or self promotion than an article eligible for an internet encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson ( talk) 12:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - multiple reliable sources. possible self-promotion needs to be confirmed. otherwise only speculations. BabbaQ ( talk) 23:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. As BabbaQ states, there are multiple reliable sources, so it passes WP:BASIC. It also meets WP:GNG. SwisterTwister is mistaken - looking at the article creator's extensive new article creations, it is obvious that this article is NOT "advertising". Edwardx ( talk) 13:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment - No, it's about it is in fact advertising, because each article contains at least one of the following: obvious republished company information or interviewed quotes, none of which are independent, regardless of which publication listed them, the company said...."The company acquires....The company says....Now to begin the article, what is the company, its business plans and its involvements, now what is the company saying [is]....The company will pay [numbers], including investment [numbers] (finishes article with a company quote)....The businessmen plan to....Everything you need to know about the company: The company now says....The man pledges....[they] see a bright future....the company's finances and numbers....He bought the company with a stake, he also then owns this [company].... None of that is independent because it's clear it was company-supplied, therefore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean absolutely nothing when WP:SPAM and WP:NOT apply, which are both in fact policy, therefore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG would surely be damned before we wouldn't consider these two.

Even then, there's literally only attention about him because of his financial and company involvements with other groups so some of these never actually focus with him thus they are not in-depth or significant if only named mentions; that's not inherited notability and nothing else would suggest otherwise. If we're honestly saying that's the best we have, especially when we know business articles damningly blatant as it is, that's not notability, or independent "news" at all, hence WP:NOT would apply, to save ourselves from being a PR webhost.

Even take this, the article itself is at least a half-quarter filled by his "life information" followed by the other section, his career but that literally then only contains such information as The company....The company manages....The company's activities...., therefore it's simply to shoehorn anything to make this article supposedly larger. The sheer fact this was started again not even 6 months ago, shows how there's blatant motivations to start a PR business listing for this man, and a heavily focused one at that. History shows, as it is, a third restarting would be conceivable simply considering how advertising's foundation works. SwisterTwister talk 07:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment: While Richard Perlhagen is probably as notable as about 99 percent of the footballers with Wikipedia biographies, it also seems rather clear that Richard Perlhagen's father Lennart Perlhagen and older brother Karl Perlhagen both are more notable than he is. Had none of these articles existed, my suggestion would have been to start with an article on the father, Lennart P, add something brief on Richard and Karl to that article, and redirect both of them for the time being. We will, in all probability, have more sources on Richard in a few years. And Wikipedia needs more articles on companies and businesspeople. Wikipedia does not need witch-hunts whenever anybody tries to write one. -- Hegvald ( talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Coverage is not about him. It's about the company and about others. He has no independent notability. duffbeerforme ( talk) 10:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Greybull is notable (though the article is almost promotional enough for G11 at this point). That does not mean the individual partners are. The refs are about the company. Multiple sources are not enough for notability--we require multiple sources with substantial coverage about the subject of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- a vanity page with no indications of notability or significance. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I am really puzzled that users think it is a "vanity page", "advertising" etc. It is just a short and sober biography of somebody I read about in the news. There has been no attempt to puff him up and surely it is obvious from my user page that it isn't a PR piece or paid editing or anything like that? These sort of casually thrown around accusations, failure to assume good faith and simple lack of common sense are what drives people away from this project. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

It looks like a vanity page because it's not clear from the article that the subject is indeed significant & notable for the public at large to be interested in this person's biography or accomplishments. It reads like a routine resume of a business executive; hence the label of a vanity page. I.e. this is something that a subject might have created themselves. I'm not suggesting that the author of the article is affiliated with the subject. But nonetheless, it's unclear why an article should exist. Hope this clarifies. K.e.coffman ( talk) 09:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Not entirely. I think you need to be more careful in your choice of words in the future. Philafrenzy ( talk) 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC) reply

I've wondered about that too.  A Google search on "vanity defined" reveals definition 2 as "the quality of being worthless or futile".  So maybe he is using an unusual definition for the word.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

My 2 cents on the V-word (V for Vanity) for what it’s worth. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (< /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion>) states “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion." I should reveal that I’ve run across a similar false “vanity” AfD comment addressed at me as an author. Zootsuit1941 ( talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I agree with the positive comments of others that the subject meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, the subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Also, the negative claims that the article is advertising, promotional or vanity do not appear to be supported with any facts. Zootsuit1941 ( talk) 23:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment There seems to be a misunderstanding here by some that Perlhagen has sought to promote himself in some way by issuing CVs or press releases which were used to construct this article. It is exactly the reverse. He and the other people at Greybull are routinely described as "secretive". I don't know Perlhagen, but I would imagine that he would be delighted if this article was deleted. Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or selectively merge into Greybull Capital. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage", something of sufficient depth in order to signify notability. "Multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" means that multiple sources can be combined to provide the depth of coverage if no single source does that, but it still requires that the sum of the coverage be "in depth". That is not the case here - all the articles provide exactly the same information about Perlhagen - 3 CV items, the fact that he co-founded Greybull and then go on to talk about how his dad made money. That is not significant coverage, that is barely coverage at all. All of the significant coverage is about what the company does, or plans to do and notability is not inherited. No longer a penguin ( talk) 13:23, 8 December 2016 (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.