Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Forssell (graphic designer)

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. Geschichte (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Forssell (graphic designer)

[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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. No indication of notability. scope_creep^Talk 10:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable graphic designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NBIO. 1292simon (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider Carl Forssell to be a very outstanding professional in the field of graphic design and he has done work of a very high level which has allowed him to win several awards. I incorporated at the time several references that have been removed from the article, from my point of view unfairly. Two of the references are from Forbes. According to Wikipedia's list of reliable sources, if a Forbes article is written by the staff or has been published in the printed magazine, "are generally reliable". In this case, it was an interview conducted by Alejandro Medina, a member of the staff of Forbes Mexico and a specialist in new technologies. Not all people are interviewed at Forbes. His involvement in a mexican film has also been suppressed with the proper reference. As part of the text and references have been removed, the article remains empty and cannot be shown to be of interest. It is a pity that there is this kind of discrimination in Wikipedia and that the same criteria is not used for everyone. The editor who cleaned up the text has not allowed me to put back these references and information about this person. So, if anyone wants to help defending it, I will be very grateful.--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forbes sources are low-quality references and are identified by the software as low-quality by showing up in red when the page is rendered. They haven't been suppressed. They have probably removed as they are junk. If the person was really notable, there would be plenty of coverage. So to suggest that there is discrimination in Wikipedia, is a bit disingenuous and beyond the pale. scope_creep^Talk 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Forbes is not considered a reliable source. Fittipaldi92's above accusation of discrimination is an unwarranted smear on the people who have judged that the topic is not currently notable. 1292simon (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if my words may have offended some editors. It was not my intention. I consider the work we all do to be absolutely respectable. I simply wanted to put on record that in the Wikipedia source list it is written that Forbes was reliable if it was the print edition and the article written by a staff member. But it's clear that this source doesn't have much of a reputation, so I'm forgetting about it. And to something else. --Fittipaldi92 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a designer doing regular jobs as most designers do. I am skeptical that the awards are significant. An English search did not return any convincing coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found nothing online in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources to substantiate this designer's notability. There was a lot of social media which does not count towards GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2020 (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.