Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Johnson

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 draftify at the article creator's request. Moved to Draft:Bo Johnson and the redirect to Bo Jonsson will be restored (any discussion about what the target should be can happen in talk space) – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Johnson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lots of citation spamming but mostly from non-WP:RS like Linkedin, Facebook and other social media. There is no indication the subject meets GNG or the notability criteria for musicians. The only claim of any song charting is that he "helped" another artist chart. Jbh ^Talk 16:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have no objection to moving the article to draft space per the author's request [1]. Jbh ^Talk 20:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 16:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely has a lot of problems, but in my opinion it is not enough to delete it. I feel this article barely passes WP:GNG, but there's probably only enough info for two sentences or so at best. Editor seems to have a connection with said producer, as it seems a similar page was made in Swedish for him, by the same guy.Jerry (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find that an article for Bo Johnson is needed and highly sought after. I have no connections to this artist at all, nor am I a fan. I have however seen and heard a lot with him in different public media for several years and he has demonstrably fans worldwide (incl. my own children and my cousins in the UK even), hence an article feels missing and required. It is correct that I have written a first, smaller article in Swedish as well, since I have learnt both the English and the Swedish language since birth and because the artist origins from Sweden which should be relevant. The Swedish article will be updated as well. I appologize should any technical mistake have been made, the purpose was solely to write this subjective and encyclopedic article following WP:GNG which was clearly missing. The sources are not at all mostly from social media, although some from it yes, but from more reliable sources eg. Billboard, Medium, IMDb, A&R Factory, All Music Ear, Spotify, Apple Music, Allmusic, BODY Magazine, BODY Radio, WHOMAG TV, Spinnin' Records, DJ Times and more. I am of course open for any improvements. Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going to i-vote because I don't read Swedish and I suspect what sources there are to be found are probably in that language, but I will say that what is provided with this entry so far are junk regarding proving notability per WP:MUSIC: social media and retail, self-download sites, promotional websites, non-RS blogs, etc. That includes references that are in reliable sources, but the coverage within isn't, such as the citation of Billboard, which only name-checks Bo Johnson in an article about another artist. But maybe someone can find something decent in Swedish. There does seem to be a source in Swedish about his body building, so maybe that should be the focus of the article if it is deemed to be enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly one has not read anything if one assumes that the sources to be found are in Swedish. In fact, I count 32 out of the 35 sources provided being in English which I understand. Same goes for coverage in more reliable sources than social media, which is plenty here. Regarding Billboard, I could eg. find this post about the award given to the artist/producer: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154409188847078. Note! Not as a reliable source since it is from Facebook, and that is not in the article either. Although yet another proof in relation to the said award. The additional notables from his bodybuilding career is interesting and seems to also be worldwide as well, however to separate that into another article would be wrong. Would you separate Arnold Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding and acting career? No, because it is the same person.

Suggestion: keep article and remove the few references to social media. Most people know about this profile and there should be a wiki article about him. Best/John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.56.85 (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you made an i-vote entry from this IP address identifying yourself as "John," then later made a 2nd i-vote entry identifying yourself as "Peter Bryant from Washington," and when a sinebot tag ID'd both from the same IP address you deleted the tag, and then removed the 2nd i-vote? ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShelbyMarion, this is John who has previously commented on this. I stand for what I say (write), I cannot stand for what anyone else says.. I can however tell you that this is a public shared computer. It seems obvious you have personal interest in sabotaging this article, which your presentation in your profile underpin. Hope you can stick to the subject and contribute instead. Best wishes/John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.56.85 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sabotaged anything, and if one checks my edit history will see that I have not done a single edit to this article. In fact, I am giving this subject a fair shake by not i-voting based on the probability that sources may exist in this subject native language, which I can't read and therefor cannot research. My interest in this discussion is that editors have a clear understanding of notable/reliable sources that pass WP:MUSIC scrutiny. (I can't assess the body building sources; that is not my area of expertise.) I find it curious/coincidental that the only wikipedia edits made on what you identify as a public computer have been in trying to justify this subjects notability, attributed to two different names, and one of them removed only after a sinebot tag reveals they are the same IP address. If I'm misinterpreting this I apologize, but I assume then that you will not have a problem if I contact the admins to verify that this IP address is not being used by someone as a sock puppet? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: GeoLocate pins down the IP to Malmo, coincidentally where the artist is based.Jerry (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was intending to start a sock investigation but when I saw the movement to draftify this article I figured why bother? If there are sources that prove this subject is notable, it has my support to be recreated properly. I'll cut the editor some slack if there was a sock attempt, as he (or she?) appears genuine in wanting to be a good contributor but, being new, may not know all the rules about conducting themselves in an AfD. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~: nothing wrong with having an article titled Bo Johnson, but not this one as it stands. Quite likely it should be a redirect or disambiguation page at the end of the day. Possibly send the current article to draft for more work. The article is a stylistic mess, full of promotional inline external links and largely referenced with social media (which may be how musicians work these days, but unfortunately doesn't cut it for WP). Removing the cruft wouldn't leave much. It could probably be tidied up, but my suggestion would be to try that in draft and go through the articles for creation process which would give helpful feedback. I don't see that the article demonstrates notability, and I didn't find much myself, but Swedish musician biographies is hardly my area of expertise. It also falls foul of the biographies of living persons guidelines for tone, balance, and sources. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian: what would you suggest as a redirect target which would be appropriate for this Bo Johnson? I'd be willing to see the article moved to draft and am willing to consider other options but I do not understand what you are proposing since this AfD is about this particular 'Bo Johnson' not about whether to have an article about some ephemeral, yet to be identified, 'Bo Johnson'. Jbh ^Talk 17:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until a couple of weeks ago, this article was a redirect, so not ephemeral at all. Hence the article shouldn't be entirely deleted unless it is considered that the redirect is also not required. It was originally a redirect to Bo Jonsson, a dab page, presumably as a mis-spelling. I changed this after one of the reverts to be a redirect to Bolley Johnson, who is nicknamed Bo, but I'm not fussed about the exact target. Pick what's most helpful. Just trying to avoid deleting the article only for it to be immediately recreated without its full history. Lithopsian (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... OK. I see what happened. The author did a 'copy-paste-move' from Draft:Bo Johnson. I think, in this case, it might be best to delete the main space page and then re-create the redirect. If the subject later becomes notable then the, by then hopefully vastly improved, draft can be moved over the redirect. I do not see any real value to keeping this article's history in the redirect page if the redirect does not have anything to do with the subject. It might even cause problems if someone later wants to create an article about another Bo Johnson over the redirect since there would be a non-trivial but unrelated page history. Jbh ^Talk 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, redirects with a "non-trivial" history consisting entirely of reverted edits can be annoying. Lithopsian (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, then recreate the original redirect (changed my vote following the merge of the draft to make way for this article). Once the draft has been improved, it can be moved into mainspace, possibly over this redirect, possibly not. Lithopsian (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you all for your comments and suggestions, I appreciate them. The purpose is still to contribute with a subjective and encyclopedic article - following all rules and regulations - about Bo Johnson which is obviously coveted. Since there is no other current existing article about Bo Johnson in English, a redirect is pointless. Taken into consideration most of his fans seem to be from English speaking countries as well, it makes even more sense for a main article in English to exist. According to the statistics under the About section on Spotify for instance, the five cities with most fans in the world are all five in the USA (https://open.spotify.com/artist/27gjoLgBSEXqq9tUqDm8tN). I'll do my best to clean up the article accordingly a.s.a.p., following your comments. Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Jbhunley, please can you or any other administrator assist in moving this article Bo Johnson to Draft:Bo Johnson then? That way I can tidy accordingly and continue to improve it, so that it can be moved back to Bo Johnson should everybody approve it and agree on that it is worthy. Only trying to contribute! Thanks, MinerwaY (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MinerwaY: I am not an administrator and since there is already a Draft:Bo Johnson I can not move this article over that one. The draft would need to be deleted first. You can request deletion of the draft by placing {{db-author}} at the top of the page. Since other editors have opined here I would want to make sure none of them object to draftifying the article per author's request before doing anything. Otherwise the AfD can just finish out its 7 day run and an uninvolved admin can do it all -- that would actually be the more proper way to do things. (@JerrySa1, ShelbyMarion, and Lithopsian:) Jbh ^Talk 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: Yes the draft already exists, and is almost up to date in comparison to the article too. I see, thank you for clarifying. MinerwaY (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just copying the existing article content into the draft as an edit. Not usually the way to move an article, but hardly a problem for a draft. We also don't want the mainspace article to become a redirect to draft-space, we want to revert it to its previous state for now. Lithopsian (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lithopsian I was going to follow your suggestion meanwhile and copy the content to the draft now, but then it turns out somebody has deleted the draft page. "18:40, 22 August 2019 Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) moved page Draft:Bo Johnson to Bo Johnson without leaving a redirect (merging two pages)" MinerwaY (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MinerwaY: An admin did a 'history merge' of the two articles [2] so the edit history would be all in one page. The way this was done -- by moving the draft over the main space page -- resulted in the removal of Draft:Bo Johnson but not the loss of its history. This makes way for draftifying the article, per your request, either at the end of this AfD or when all of the editors who have !voted indicate they are OK with doing so. Jbh ^Talk 13:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @MinerwaY: Thanks for cleaning up the references in the article. Looking through them though I do not see any which I think cause him to pass the general notability guidelines or for bands and musicians. What is needed are three or so independent reliable sources which have significant coverage about him. I usually consider significant to mean at least two or three paragraphs, others may look for more or less but two/three is a good rule-of-thumb.
Press releases (also articles which reasonably appear to be 'repackaged' marketing material), blogs, social media, sites with user generated content or pay-to-place articles, as well as articles with just a couple of lines -- known as 'passing mentions' -- do not contribute to notability for Wikipedia purposes. Some such material might be usable in an article once notability is established but they still need to be in line with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements as well as the policy on biographies of living people.
Please click through the blue links. Wikipedia uses some words like 'notability' and 'source' in ways which are specific to the site and the linked pages describe important policies and guidelines.
I have the article on my watchlist but feel free to ping me, either here or from the article's talk page, if you have any questions or would like my opinion on a particular source. Jbh ^Talk 14:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Filelakeshoe: Ummmm... did you not see that the article's author requested the article be moved to draft? Jbh ^Talk 12:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right, I will close this. I relisted as I saw a major edit had been made before you posted your last comment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:16, 28 August 2019 (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.