- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- TIX ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, removed with the addition of the Dagbladet source. My Norwegian isn't brilliant, so I'm happy to be corrected here, but that reads as a promotional interview (albeit with the online arm of a major newspaper), and is therefore a bit less than independent. I don't see a pass of the relevant notability standards here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- What about the coverage in Budstikka? An entire article about him and the controversies he's been involved in. Did the nom do wp:before? FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the world's most in-depth source, that one, but it might surprise you to know that I read it multiple times in between tagging the article for possible notability issues in mid-December and tagging it with a PROD in mid-January. As mentioned above, my Norwegian isn't great, so while I'm going to give it a sort of "conceded pass", I'm happy for someone else to critique that. Since you're hung up on the idea of a lack of pre-nomination research, though, I'll ask whether you're aware that
WP:GNG calls for "sources" establishing notability, rather than only the one.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a
Google News search shows lots of article covering this subject. Google Translate is fairly effective at seeing what the articles say.
WP:BEFORE recommends doing such basic investigation before attempting to have article subjects deleted.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Spare me the lecture. Also, let's not pretend that a Google News Search which throws up every single article with the words "Andreas" or "Haukeland" (whether connected, related or otherwise) amounts to "covering the subject". You're welcome to assume that I spent all of five seconds looking for sources, but it simply isn't true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a
Google News search shows lots of article covering this subject. Google Translate is fairly effective at seeing what the articles say.
WP:BEFORE recommends doing such basic investigation before attempting to have article subjects deleted.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the world's most in-depth source, that one, but it might surprise you to know that I read it multiple times in between tagging the article for possible notability issues in mid-December and tagging it with a PROD in mid-January. As mentioned above, my Norwegian isn't great, so while I'm going to give it a sort of "conceded pass", I'm happy for someone else to critique that. Since you're hung up on the idea of a lack of pre-nomination research, though, I'll ask whether you're aware that
WP:GNG calls for "sources" establishing notability, rather than only the one.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable ibdependent sources as discussed above. FloridaArmy ( talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Interviews and promotional pieces don't combine to make reliable and independent coverage. Neither do articles about unrelated hockey players going to South Korea for the Olympics and transport in different regions of Norway.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. And the sources on Google News and elsewhere aren't just interviews and promotional pieces. FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
-
One of many examples. Please stop wasting peoples time with frivolous AfD's.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 01:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Handwaving at "many examples" and calling a nomination I in fact hald back on for approximately a month "frivolous" doesn't help. You could always add the sources and expand the article, but I think you prefer behaving in this childish manner, which does you no credit.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please familoarize yourself with
WP:BEFORE and what's expected of you prior to seeling the deletion of a subject.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that you don't think I've done that, but let's put this issue to bed once and for all. Here's what I did prior to listing this page here at AfD:
- Please familoarize yourself with
WP:BEFORE and what's expected of you prior to seeling the deletion of a subject.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Handwaving at "many examples" and calling a nomination I in fact hald back on for approximately a month "frivolous" doesn't help. You could always add the sources and expand the article, but I think you prefer behaving in this childish manner, which does you no credit.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Interviews and promotional pieces don't combine to make reliable and independent coverage. Neither do articles about unrelated hockey players going to South Korea for the Olympics and transport in different regions of Norway.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Read and understand these policies and guidelines (specifically the deletion policy, the "four main policies and guidelines" and the subject-specific guidelines)
I came across this page on new page patrol in mid-December, and noticed that it was a short article about a musician. Investigating NMUSIC, I was given a series of guidelines which the subject of the article should probably meet in order to justify an article. At the time that I came across the article, I didn't have the chance to do a full search for evidence that the subject met the guidelines in question. I therefore tagged it for possibly having notability issues, leaving it on my watchlist so that (A) I would see if someone else edited the page to allay or confirm my concerns and (B) it would serve as a reminder to investigate further.
- Carry out these checks (an exhaustive list)
The major relevant one in that list was number 2 ("take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"), as my concerns dealt with a lack of sources. I did, however, ensure that we were not looking at a BLP-Prod case (as there was a source) and that vandalism and the like were not to blame. Over the ensuing month - through to mid-January - I performed searches on both the subject's stage name and birth name. I recognise that I didn't perform these with you looking over my shoulder, which appears to be the only way you'd accept that I did so, but perform them I did. Comparing what I found with the guidelines presented in NMUSIC, not to mention any more general guidelines around notability, in my view they fell short.
- Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
Had relevant sources which met the bar(s) required been forthcoming, the article would indeed have been capable of being improved rather than deleted. They were not.
- Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
Again, this was done on a number of occasions in the month during which the article was tagged for notability, as indicated above. In your opinion, I either didn't do this at all or enough, and I've indicated that you're mistaken in this belief. Again, such sources as do exist do not (in my view) get over the bar for significant, in-depth, independent coverage by reliable sources. You believe that there are sources "elsewhere" which satisfy this requirement, and as yet have only been able to point to a couple of promotional pieces and an absurdly catch-all Google News search result. I submit that if we were talking about a musical act from the USA or anywhere else in the Anglophone world, this level of search results would be unquestionably demonstrating non-notability.
- What happened next
Having established that nothing I could find was of the standard required, I tagged this article in mid-January for Proposed Deletion. Taking this action can - I've certainly seen it happen - serve as a reminder to the article creator that some additional work still needs to be done. You removed the tag some three days later (as is your right), adding one of the sources I'd seen in my previous searches. As that (still) didn't get around the concerns that I had regarding the article, I listed it here.
- A general point
Acting as if other users are stupid for not finding sources which you have found, or for holding a different view on the sources everyone has found, really doesn't help. AfD is full of situations where further research (frequently in quite specialised areas) produces an article which gets kept easily. The key here, though, is research, rather than name-calling. I'm always happy to revise my opinion if someone says to me - in a reasonable way - "You know, you've misunderstood XYZ". Carrying on like this - and across several AfDs - is the precise opposite. You'll also find that it's a good idea to assume the best of other editors rather than the worst. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in your nom dp you mention the first source I brpught up in this discussion which you have acknowledged covered the subject. And now I have provided another source discussing the subject of this article and no other. So it's a bit disingenous to say you aren't asking someone to look over your shoulder and do the work for you that
WP:BEFORE explains quite clearly. These a proper news sources and there are others. My objection is tp not only having to find that there are in fact plent of sources with substantial coverage. Then having tp link where I found them. Then, having you refuse tp follow up, having to go through them one by one. Next I will have to quote from them. It's ridoculous. These are articles aboit this subject. If they are "promotional" please explain how and in what way? Why shouldn't they be considered reliable sources? Why isn't an article about this musician detailing his work substantial coverage?
FloridaArmy (
talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in my nomination do I mention that first source? Assuming you mean the Dagbladet one you added on de-PROD, I actually do. Even if I didn't, I don't believe there's a requirement to "fisk" the article as it currently stands at the time of the nomination. I could simply have said "nn musician", but I don't believe in such a brief nomination. I'm not asking you to do my work for me, either. My reference to you looking over my shoulder is that I don't know of any other way in which I could convince you that I've done the relevant BEFORE work, since you appear to believe that since we differ on the nature of the sources that we've (both, I hasten to point out) found, I can't possibly have done any research on the matter (or any "follow up", as you seem to term re-reading the sources I found some time ago and you have pointed in the general direction of in the Google News search). Since you didn't physically see me doing that research, it seems, you refuse to believe that I did it, when the only difference is that we don't agree on the outcome of that research. Ultimately, where we differ is what to do with the "plenty of sources" to which you refer. Your view - as I see it - is that pointing in the general direction of sources and saying "they're substantive" is enough (and I do agree that an article shouldn't be deleted if there are substantive sources that do exist but haven't been incorporated yet). My view - having looked at the sources you've linked so far, as well as followed your handwaving on Google News, as well as having done that earlier despite your belief otherwise - is that they are not substantive. If you feel that quoting the substantive and relevant bits is "ridiculous", you're welcome to that opinion, but it seems less likely to advance your perspective on things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in your nom dp you mention the first source I brpught up in this discussion which you have acknowledged covered the subject. And now I have provided another source discussing the subject of this article and no other. So it's a bit disingenous to say you aren't asking someone to look over your shoulder and do the work for you that
WP:BEFORE explains quite clearly. These a proper news sources and there are others. My objection is tp not only having to find that there are in fact plent of sources with substantial coverage. Then having tp link where I found them. Then, having you refuse tp follow up, having to go through them one by one. Next I will have to quote from them. It's ridoculous. These are articles aboit this subject. If they are "promotional" please explain how and in what way? Why shouldn't they be considered reliable sources? Why isn't an article about this musician detailing his work substantial coverage?
FloridaArmy (
talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:ENT & significant RS coverage not found. In general, WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
- TIX ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, removed with the addition of the Dagbladet source. My Norwegian isn't brilliant, so I'm happy to be corrected here, but that reads as a promotional interview (albeit with the online arm of a major newspaper), and is therefore a bit less than independent. I don't see a pass of the relevant notability standards here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga ( talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- What about the coverage in Budstikka? An entire article about him and the controversies he's been involved in. Did the nom do wp:before? FloridaArmy ( talk) 13:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the world's most in-depth source, that one, but it might surprise you to know that I read it multiple times in between tagging the article for possible notability issues in mid-December and tagging it with a PROD in mid-January. As mentioned above, my Norwegian isn't great, so while I'm going to give it a sort of "conceded pass", I'm happy for someone else to critique that. Since you're hung up on the idea of a lack of pre-nomination research, though, I'll ask whether you're aware that
WP:GNG calls for "sources" establishing notability, rather than only the one.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a
Google News search shows lots of article covering this subject. Google Translate is fairly effective at seeing what the articles say.
WP:BEFORE recommends doing such basic investigation before attempting to have article subjects deleted.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Spare me the lecture. Also, let's not pretend that a Google News Search which throws up every single article with the words "Andreas" or "Haukeland" (whether connected, related or otherwise) amounts to "covering the subject". You're welcome to assume that I spent all of five seconds looking for sources, but it simply isn't true. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a
Google News search shows lots of article covering this subject. Google Translate is fairly effective at seeing what the articles say.
WP:BEFORE recommends doing such basic investigation before attempting to have article subjects deleted.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's not the world's most in-depth source, that one, but it might surprise you to know that I read it multiple times in between tagging the article for possible notability issues in mid-December and tagging it with a PROD in mid-January. As mentioned above, my Norwegian isn't great, so while I'm going to give it a sort of "conceded pass", I'm happy for someone else to critique that. Since you're hung up on the idea of a lack of pre-nomination research, though, I'll ask whether you're aware that
WP:GNG calls for "sources" establishing notability, rather than only the one.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 01:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 08:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable ibdependent sources as discussed above. FloridaArmy ( talk) 14:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Interviews and promotional pieces don't combine to make reliable and independent coverage. Neither do articles about unrelated hockey players going to South Korea for the Olympics and transport in different regions of Norway.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Indeed. And the sources on Google News and elsewhere aren't just interviews and promotional pieces. FloridaArmy ( talk) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
-
One of many examples. Please stop wasting peoples time with frivolous AfD's.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 01:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Handwaving at "many examples" and calling a nomination I in fact hald back on for approximately a month "frivolous" doesn't help. You could always add the sources and expand the article, but I think you prefer behaving in this childish manner, which does you no credit.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Please familoarize yourself with
WP:BEFORE and what's expected of you prior to seeling the deletion of a subject.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that you don't think I've done that, but let's put this issue to bed once and for all. Here's what I did prior to listing this page here at AfD:
- Please familoarize yourself with
WP:BEFORE and what's expected of you prior to seeling the deletion of a subject.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Handwaving at "many examples" and calling a nomination I in fact hald back on for approximately a month "frivolous" doesn't help. You could always add the sources and expand the article, but I think you prefer behaving in this childish manner, which does you no credit.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 02:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Interviews and promotional pieces don't combine to make reliable and independent coverage. Neither do articles about unrelated hockey players going to South Korea for the Olympics and transport in different regions of Norway.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 23:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- Read and understand these policies and guidelines (specifically the deletion policy, the "four main policies and guidelines" and the subject-specific guidelines)
I came across this page on new page patrol in mid-December, and noticed that it was a short article about a musician. Investigating NMUSIC, I was given a series of guidelines which the subject of the article should probably meet in order to justify an article. At the time that I came across the article, I didn't have the chance to do a full search for evidence that the subject met the guidelines in question. I therefore tagged it for possibly having notability issues, leaving it on my watchlist so that (A) I would see if someone else edited the page to allay or confirm my concerns and (B) it would serve as a reminder to investigate further.
- Carry out these checks (an exhaustive list)
The major relevant one in that list was number 2 ("take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources"), as my concerns dealt with a lack of sources. I did, however, ensure that we were not looking at a BLP-Prod case (as there was a source) and that vandalism and the like were not to blame. Over the ensuing month - through to mid-January - I performed searches on both the subject's stage name and birth name. I recognise that I didn't perform these with you looking over my shoulder, which appears to be the only way you'd accept that I did so, but perform them I did. Comparing what I found with the guidelines presented in NMUSIC, not to mention any more general guidelines around notability, in my view they fell short.
- Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted
Had relevant sources which met the bar(s) required been forthcoming, the article would indeed have been capable of being improved rather than deleted. They were not.
- Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability
Again, this was done on a number of occasions in the month during which the article was tagged for notability, as indicated above. In your opinion, I either didn't do this at all or enough, and I've indicated that you're mistaken in this belief. Again, such sources as do exist do not (in my view) get over the bar for significant, in-depth, independent coverage by reliable sources. You believe that there are sources "elsewhere" which satisfy this requirement, and as yet have only been able to point to a couple of promotional pieces and an absurdly catch-all Google News search result. I submit that if we were talking about a musical act from the USA or anywhere else in the Anglophone world, this level of search results would be unquestionably demonstrating non-notability.
- What happened next
Having established that nothing I could find was of the standard required, I tagged this article in mid-January for Proposed Deletion. Taking this action can - I've certainly seen it happen - serve as a reminder to the article creator that some additional work still needs to be done. You removed the tag some three days later (as is your right), adding one of the sources I'd seen in my previous searches. As that (still) didn't get around the concerns that I had regarding the article, I listed it here.
- A general point
Acting as if other users are stupid for not finding sources which you have found, or for holding a different view on the sources everyone has found, really doesn't help. AfD is full of situations where further research (frequently in quite specialised areas) produces an article which gets kept easily. The key here, though, is research, rather than name-calling. I'm always happy to revise my opinion if someone says to me - in a reasonable way - "You know, you've misunderstood XYZ". Carrying on like this - and across several AfDs - is the precise opposite. You'll also find that it's a good idea to assume the best of other editors rather than the worst. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in your nom dp you mention the first source I brpught up in this discussion which you have acknowledged covered the subject. And now I have provided another source discussing the subject of this article and no other. So it's a bit disingenous to say you aren't asking someone to look over your shoulder and do the work for you that
WP:BEFORE explains quite clearly. These a proper news sources and there are others. My objection is tp not only having to find that there are in fact plent of sources with substantial coverage. Then having tp link where I found them. Then, having you refuse tp follow up, having to go through them one by one. Next I will have to quote from them. It's ridoculous. These are articles aboit this subject. If they are "promotional" please explain how and in what way? Why shouldn't they be considered reliable sources? Why isn't an article about this musician detailing his work substantial coverage?
FloridaArmy (
talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in my nomination do I mention that first source? Assuming you mean the Dagbladet one you added on de-PROD, I actually do. Even if I didn't, I don't believe there's a requirement to "fisk" the article as it currently stands at the time of the nomination. I could simply have said "nn musician", but I don't believe in such a brief nomination. I'm not asking you to do my work for me, either. My reference to you looking over my shoulder is that I don't know of any other way in which I could convince you that I've done the relevant BEFORE work, since you appear to believe that since we differ on the nature of the sources that we've (both, I hasten to point out) found, I can't possibly have done any research on the matter (or any "follow up", as you seem to term re-reading the sources I found some time ago and you have pointed in the general direction of in the Google News search). Since you didn't physically see me doing that research, it seems, you refuse to believe that I did it, when the only difference is that we don't agree on the outcome of that research. Ultimately, where we differ is what to do with the "plenty of sources" to which you refer. Your view - as I see it - is that pointing in the general direction of sources and saying "they're substantive" is enough (and I do agree that an article shouldn't be deleted if there are substantive sources that do exist but haven't been incorporated yet). My view - having looked at the sources you've linked so far, as well as followed your handwaving on Google News, as well as having done that earlier despite your belief otherwise - is that they are not substantive. If you feel that quoting the substantive and relevant bits is "ridiculous", you're welcome to that opinion, but it seems less likely to advance your perspective on things. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nowhere in your nom dp you mention the first source I brpught up in this discussion which you have acknowledged covered the subject. And now I have provided another source discussing the subject of this article and no other. So it's a bit disingenous to say you aren't asking someone to look over your shoulder and do the work for you that
WP:BEFORE explains quite clearly. These a proper news sources and there are others. My objection is tp not only having to find that there are in fact plent of sources with substantial coverage. Then having tp link where I found them. Then, having you refuse tp follow up, having to go through them one by one. Next I will have to quote from them. It's ridoculous. These are articles aboit this subject. If they are "promotional" please explain how and in what way? Why shouldn't they be considered reliable sources? Why isn't an article about this musician detailing his work substantial coverage?
FloridaArmy (
talk) 03:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:ENT & significant RS coverage not found. In general, WP:TOOSOON. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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.