Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjordman (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. The consensus is strongly for keep. I agree. Analyzing the arguments briefly, I think the argument that he fails ONEEVENT is disproven by his accepted notability here as tested by 2 AfDs before the event. There seems to be enough sources presented; that most are from after the Norway events shows added notability, & is not a reason to delete. A merge into the recent attacks would . And, in my opinion, be a serious BLP violation, implying his direct association with them. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman

edit
AfDs for this article:
Fjordman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability criteria. Most sources used in the article are either the blogger's own texts, or other blogs. Sources that may be considered to be valid for establishing notability do not show significant coverage of the blogger.   Cs32en Talk to me  14:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Following the recent changes to the article, I am changing my request to merge into 2011 Norway attacks.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Striking out my update above, as the rewrite of the article has been reverted by Yngvadottir (talk · contribs).)  Cs32en Talk to me  04:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of rationale for the request In the last two days, a number of reliable sources have mentioned Fjordman. These sources generally report on an alleged connection of Fjordman to Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. The article thus falls under WP:BLP1E, the policy for people notable for a single event only. As the issues related to the misuse of self-published and non-reliable sources in the article can be addressed after a merger, I am requesting to merge the article to 2011 Norway attack, in light of the recent reports in reliable sources. In addition, some information about Fjordman may be added to Anders Behring Breivik, subject to discussion at that article.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The number of available source has increased significantly in the last few days. Still, reliable sources are reporting exclusively, or almost exclusively, on Fjordman with regard to his influence on Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. Thus, WP:BLP1E continues to apply. Please note that the article itself has also changed significantly since I nominated it for deletion.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment merely asserts non-notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in books, articles, and newspaper coverage on anti-Islamic bloggers; widely cited as a prominent example outside the blogosphere as well as in. All the more so now that Anders Behring Breivik has both talked about him and republished writing by him in his manifesto. As proven by all the people who keep adding the discredited rumor that he is Breivik. The article now contains refs to several additional reliable sources arising from the Breivik association, at least one of which (from Aftenposten) is substantially about Fjordman. In short, extremely widely covered, recent coverage making his notability all the clearer. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One newspaper article is not sufficient coverage to establish notability, per WP:Notability.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple newspaper articles, in particular reporting Breivik's admiration of him. I merely highlighted that one as being almost entirely about Fjordman. I have to wonder whether you have looked at the sources cited in the article—and there are others not used. Perhaps you don't accept FL sources? Under policy, he's very clearly notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now examined every source that was present in the article as of this version. The vast majority of the sources are blogs, self-published sources, texts written by Fjordman, tendentious texts by non-experts or a combination of the above. In addition, there are very few reliable sources. These sources either (a) contain only trivial references to Fjordman or (b) contain some content about Fjordman related to the 2011 Norway attacks. The number of reliable sources is insufficient to establish notability, and even if there were more reliable sources about Fjordman's alleged connection to the attacks, this would not establish any independent notability of Fjordman. In this case, the article would need to be merged into the 2011 Norway attacks article. Furthermore, the article is not based primarily on the few reliable sources that are available, and Fjordman's self-published texts are not being used to fill eventual gaps in the coverage of reliable, independent sources. Instead, the article, in it's current form, serves as a linkfarm and a soapbox for Fjordman and other people who share this blogger's views.

1. Fjordman SPS
2. Non-RS blog
3. Non-RS blog
4. Fjordman SPS
5. Non-RS blog
6. Fjordman on blog
7. Non-RS (only indicates that Fjordman is a blogger at this site)
8. Non-RS (only links to Fjordman's articles)
9. Non-RS blog
10. Non-RS blog
11. Non-RS blog (some editorial policy, but focus is on political commentary, not independent reporting)
12. Blog (provided by an RS, but this does not make the commentary by the author reliable, only mentions Fjordman in a trivial way)
13. Non-RS SPS
14. RS article based on an interview with Ole Jørgen Anfindsen
Remark: Most of the content can only be used to describe what Anfindsen says, and the rest, while containing some bits of information, is not substantial. Anfindsen is a right-wing blogger and has edited a book in which Fjordman wrote a chapter.
15. RS (reports on how Fjordman is allegedly connected to the 2011 Norway attacks, thus not an indication of independent notability)
16. RS (reports on how Fjordman is allegedly connected to the 2011 Norway attacks, thus not an indication of independent notability)
17. RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
18. Master's thesis (non-RS, tendentious) "This paper first demonstrates how the West is unwilling to recognize the threat it faces because of political correctness and an uncontested intellectual emasculation." (Abstract, p. 7)
19. Robert Spencer is a tendentious author and blogger, not a recognized expert. The content can only be only be used to describe Spencer's ideas, not to establish the notability of Fjordman.
20. RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
21. Non-RS (mention of Fjordman is trivial)
22. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
23. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
24. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
25. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
26. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
27. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman
28. Non-RS blog entry by Fjordman

  Cs32en Talk to me  00:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does not address the policy-related issues.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does: it asserts notability based on coverage related to 2011 Norway attacks. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Fu*kin' Keep. What the fuck, man! This fellow is devastatingly well-known as a right wing radical spokesman. Fjordmann is frequently mentioned in the press and is as well-known in Scandinavia as David Duke, G. Gordon Liddy, and Sean Hannity are in the USA. Either this deletion request is the result of the myopic churlishness inherent of a US-centric audience or it's simply a knee-jerk reaction to the Norwegian shootings last week. Either way I have to raise my voice and say: FU*K THAT! Uywwi (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment does not address the policy-related issues. Uywwi is blocked indefinitely.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does--"frequently mentioned in the press" is a substantiated assertion of general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not substantiated by Uywwi Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated assertion.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase "prominent blogger" always causes some irritation but may actually be appropriate here, especially if we consider any proven connections to the recent, notable attacks in Norway. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A connection to something that is notable does not establish notability.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The poster wrote "especially." Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment does not address the policy-related issues.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This comment also asserts notability based on coverage related to 2011 Norway attacks. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If sufficient independent, third-party coverage for Fjordman can be found, then an article on Fjordman will be fine. At that point, the article can also reflect primarily what the reliable sources say, instead of serving as a soapbox for Fjordman and as a linkfarm for Fjordman's and other right-wing blogs.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there are enough reliable sources, then an article may be created. I'm not in any way dead set on preventing an article about Fjordman, but I'm convinced that such an article needs to be primarily based on information taken from independent, reliable sources. The current article is primarily based on Fjordman's own self-published texts, and on other non-reliable sources. Furthermore, we need reliable sources that mention Fjordman in a non-trivial way outside of the context of the 2011 Norway attacks, because if the only substantial coverage of Fjordman would be in relation to this event, then we would need to merge the article into the 2011 Norway attacks article, per WP:BLP1E (I know that this is not strictly a BLP, but I would assume that the BLP policy applies here.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment by 80.213.19.224 is in serious bad faith and insofar as it asserts conflict of interest-related disruption, could be regarded as a personal attack. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now rewritten the article, allowing to possibly start over improving it from scratch. I used the RSs I found for now (including several Norwegian ones), and others may continue adding content to the article, given that RS are found. – Bellatores (t.) 00:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your work on the article! Your version addresses many of my concerns, though not all. I would still argue that there is not sufficient notability independent of the 2011 Norway attacks. As that article expands, there is a possibility that content related to Fjordman would be spun-off to a subarticle. This however, would mean that a {{main}}{{See also}} template would need to be added to the Fjordman article, pointing to the 2011 Norway attacks. I also think we need indicate to the reader that some of the sources are tendentious in nature, e.g. Spencer and Anfindsen. So, at this point, I would change my request from delete to merge into 2011 Norway attacks. (This may mean that a new discussion would need to be opened, but I would leave it to uninvolved people to decide on how to proceed.)  Cs32en Talk to me  01:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the rewrite, which was based on a much too restrictive reading of the policy on sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should rename the article "Allegations about Fjordman's connection to the 2011 Norway attacks", as that is what the reliable sources are reporting about.  Cs32en Talk to me  04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although most of these links are either blogs, opinion pieces, tendentions non-reliable sources (per WP:RS), or articles that only refer to Fjordman in a trivial way, there are now some news articles (including articles that were published after I have nominated the article for deletion) that include some more information about Fjordman. Given that these articles generally explore how Fjordman was connected to Anders Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks (e.g., this CNN article), a merge would still be necessary, per WP:BLP1E, as well as a substantial rewrite of the article. Bellatores (talk · contribs) has begun such a rewrite, but has been reverted by an editor who apparently insists on referencing Fjordman's self-published text extensively, in violation of WP:ABOUTSELF.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the RSs shows that Fjordman is notable enough on his own (although media has pretty much not dared to mention him before a few days ago), and I thus don't support a merge, but a keep. The sources clearly establish that he has been a major "phenomena" and an influential internet writer for years, even though they have not mentioned him very much in RS until now. – Bellatores (t.) 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record; I would support a delete if it concerned the version that Yngvadottir supports, since that version beyond doubt does not have any kind of legitimacy. – Bellatores (t.) 14:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, most right extremist bloggers are not notable. If it wasn't because of the terrorist attacks of July 22th I would have voted for a delete. 9 of the 10 largest newspapers in Norway have written about Fjordman: Aftenposten, VG (19.11.2005), Dagbladet, Bergens Tidende, Dagens Næringsliv, Adresseavisen, Stavanger Aftenblad, Fædrelandsvennen, Romerikes Blad H@r@ld (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question of Counterjihadi influence on Breivik is a subject of discussion in the New York Times[1] and other prominent sources, particularly in Norway of course, eg Dagbladet[2], which refers to Fjordman aka Fjordmann as one of five Breivik "heroes" and "ideological role models" (whose response the article also reports). NYT discusses Gates of Vienna rather than Fjordman/n by name ++inserted: although it does make specific reference to him ("Mr. Breivik also quoted European blogs and writers with similar themes, notably a Norwegian blogger who writes under the name “Fjordman.”")++ but Fjordman/n is a prominent contributors to GoV and spent a while at the forefront at GoV after the killings until retiring to cope with his "exhaustion". Before Breivik was arrested Fjordman/n was being pointed to as the killer - as Fjordman/n complains (pace WP:ABOUTSELF - other rumour sites confirm that the rumour existed even if the culpability wasn't). Whether or not Fjordman/n was the original author, deleting the article at this particular moment would be a pretty good coup for those who think determining the big end or little end of notability is more important than providing information to an interested public. Opbeith (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose merge I strongly oppose a merge, as it would tie Fjordman unacceptably close to the 2011 attacks, of which he, after all, was an innocent bystander. Fjordman is an independent blogger, who has no further connection to the attacks other than being so unfortunate to find himself an "ideological inspiration" to Breivik (along with very many other writers), without his knowledge. Whether the article should be deleted is another question, but I believe there is sufficient grounds for having an independent article for Fjordman (based on my version, not the perfectly deletable rubbish-article promoted by Yngvadottir); there are plenty RS for him after the attacks, and although he wasn't much noted in RS before, I think the nature of the RS compensate for this since they assert his years of major internet political influence. I don't think it matters too much how someone appears in the "spotlight", but rather just that one does one time. – Bellatores (t.) 19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable blogger, but the long section detailing his views gives them WP:UNDUE weight, and comes across more as promoting those views than describing them. A very tiny proportion of his notability comes from the details of his views, and a major part of it now and in the future is his inspiration of Breivik. Sharktopus talk 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not just "inspire" Breivik, he wrote half of his manifesto. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've just added an intresting slant on his relationship with the Finnish MP Jussi Halla-aho.213.81.116.126 (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Second choice would be to merge to Counterjihad. Do not delete! I keep seeing this name in news report after news report; he's listed by the New York Times as one of a few leading proponents of the counterjihad philosophy.[3] Merging him into a story about the terrorist attacks, which he never advocated and actually denounced, would violate BLP among other things. Wnt (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as per the discussion in the previous two AfDs. The concerns raised by Cs32en being valid or not, the AfD is ill advised as a first step in an improvement process of the encyclopedia. That said, lets be careful not to engage in systemic bias by pushing for a threshold of notability that is US-centric. I also strongly oppose a merge as fjordman's notability predates and is unrelated to the 2011 Norway attacks, even if the event has increased his/her profile... but profile and notability are not the same thing. --Cerejota (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge with Anders Behring Breivik. If this is really a different person, he's only notable to the extent that he's mentioned in connection with Anders Behring Breivik. He's not notable in his own right, he's some anonymous far-right fringe extremist blogger who once had a free Blogspot blog, and who is only known because Breivik frequently cited him in his manifesto. JonFlaune (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fjordman_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1145836812"