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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Welinder (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)

Highly promotional article about a businessman with no indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, and only a passing mention in Gnews. In its present state it could probably be speedied G11: while this could be fixed with an appropriate amount of shovelling, the notability problem would remain.

There's an evident WP:Conflict of interest between this article's creator and a recent autobiographical contributor: this page was originally created as the autobio user page User:Lacwel by WP:SPA Special:Contributions/Lacwel, then pasted here by a second editor Special:Contributions/Bezzanet, who also created the blatantly promotional Softvision, Welinder's company. Lacwell has also just created a spam article very similar to the Softvision one, on Draft:Stephen Berry, Welinder's colleague at Softvision, using photos of Berry uploaded by Bezzanet. Note that "Bezza" is a colloquial nickname in the UK for the surname "Berry": [1] Wikishovel (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unable to establish that the subject meets general notability guidelines, there's essentially nothing in the press, so it absolutely does not meet the criteria for significant coverage. (There is information that can be found from the basic google search, but it would take a lot of weeding out to find reliable, independent, secondary sources). In addition, there article is now largely uncited and there appear to be other issues as well.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 25 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.