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 no consensus. One two three... 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Salonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails both basic and additional criteria for notability. Also issue of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E. This article is about some custody battle involving a child, so there is also a privacy of names issue too. Martintg (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, it has been in Finnish tabloids even a year ago as "tragic family story". Now when this "kidnap" happened again, the foreign minister commented it with a one sentence. That doesn't make it notable at all, you don't even remember this a few months later. Unless there are major diplomatic consequences, which there aren't and probably won't be, it's not notable by any means. --Pudeo' 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article could be renamed Anton Salonen incident or Finnish-Russian child abduction incident (2009). The diplomatic incident has received wide coverage on Russian media, Searching for "Антон Салонен" gives 213 related news articles. A search on Google translate for "Антон Салонен" gives about about 1180 pages, hovewer a search for "Антона Салонена" gives about about 29,400 pages! On the diplomatic level the incident has so far resulted in the removal of one Finnish diplomat and a formal diplomatic note (German: Diplomatische Note, Russian: Нота (дипломатия)) from Russia. Anton is not exactly notable only for one event, the story has been covered by the Finnish media for a whole year, with multiple developments. As to the privacy of names issue, the name, photos and personal details have been exploited by numerous Finnish and Russian media sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Petri Krohn (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However there is not even a corresponding Finnish Wikipedia article at present, so why should there be an article in English wikipedia when there is absolutely no English language sources. Custody battles are a sad but mundane fact of life and child abductions where one parent returns to the old country with the child are unfortunately quite common, particularly in immigrant societies like the USA and Australia. --Martintg (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, there's a general principle that child custody cases are to be decided under jurisdiction of the child's original residence country. Because of this, these issues are very infrequent between two different EU countries. Unfortunately, Russia is not a signatory to the relevant treaty, and child custody battles go sour between EU citizens and Russia's citizens at a considerably higher frequency. Maybe an overview article of the issues titled something like Child custody battles involving international marriage with citizen of Russia would be appropriate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Petri Krohn (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as neither the person nor the event are notable enough for proper encyclopædic coverage. Besides, the boy will grow up one day, and this sort of fame will not help that process. The little public interest that may exist in covering the story does not outweigh ethics of child privacy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One eventer, BLP Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arma virumque cano and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Petri Krohn. Offliner (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. One event. Peltimikko (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The media continues the issue for a second week (The Yellow media don't have anything better to publish right now...). Peltimikko (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The media coverage is enough to satisfy the Wikipedia's notability requirements. There plenty of reliable sources.--Dojarca (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. There are millions of news subjects every year, some of which you don't remember the year after like this. One child under a trunk. In reality, thousands of people are smuggled with human trafficking every month. --Pudeo' 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP. If the case itself turns out to have some historic notability it can be covered without mentioning the child's name. Yes, there are plenty of news reports available on the web that name him, but they will very likely be taken down over time, with our article remaining indefinitely. The events described must be pretty traumatising for this poor kid - let's let him grow up without the first search engine hit for his name always being a reminder of what happened to him. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have moved the article to Anton incident and removed the full name from the article. Most news coverage however mention the full name. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under new name, per Petri Krohn's change. This is an international issue that has been discussed widely for some time, and so long as we focus on the incident and not so much on the specific child, I see notability and no real privacy issue. I'd almost want to remove the full name redirect as well, but it isn't as if that'll do anything to quiet the publicity surrounding the boy's name. Avram (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I strongly support to keep this article because this case shows clearly the problems of Estonian apartheid. The mother of the child is born in Estonia with no citizenship. Her only way out to find better life and possiblities from Estonian apartheid is to marry abroad. This is the way how Estonia is making the "ethnic cleancing", finally getting Russian speaking population to leave the country. The marriage is the ticket to freedom. It might be a dissapointment to the man to find finally that he has been used only for "transportation". This Anton incident is a perfect example to show, how does the Estonian apartheid effect in people´s life.90.191.10.50 (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please discount that vote as it is obviously sock of Roobit,a permabanned Black Hundredist troll. --Miacek (t) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sock accusations against User Roobit (talk · contribs) were false, the real sockmaster was Bloomfield (talk · contribs). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never known Bloomfield (talk · contribs) to engage in anti-Estonian hate speech previously. Judging by the tone of the rant, it is definitely Roobit (talk · contribs). Martintg (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, it is not Bloomfield's style to start with a rant on a talkpage, then copy it over. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin might want to disregard the arguments of the IP for being formulated in a disruptive way. Also the IP is probably a sock of a blocked user Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Anton Salonen incident --RicHard (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The incident seems to be notable per Petri Krohn. I would suggest moving the article to a title that avoids the child's name per WP:BLP: e.g. Russian-Finnish child custody dispute Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with User:Phil Bridger in this. The publicity of this single event will eventually die down, while the Wikipedia article will remain indefinitely. Therefore if the article is kept with a new name, then at the very least the redirect must be deleted. --Martintg (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability borderline. BLP concerns push this clearly onto the delete side.radek (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, so his full name is covered in thousands of reliable sources, and you still want Wikipedia to censor it for no reason other than some misguided rules, even though Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. Makes perfect sense. — Kingalex56 (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I would suggest moving the article to a title that includes the child's name in order to avoid unnecessary and despicable censorship; e.g., Anton Salonen incident. — Kingalex56 (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT#NEWS. Nobody unconnected will remember this in a year's time. Stifle (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (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.