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. AKRadecki 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman[edit]

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

Non-notable inactive blog, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources (only other blogs). Mackan 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Entry is for blogger, not blog. The blogger's opinions and articles are continuously quoted by serious and popular blogs such as Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs and Brussels Journal and therefore is notable. Other blogs are reliable sources for the claim that he's "widely quoted by blogs". Misheu 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is indeed about a blogger, not about a blog. Thus WP:BIO should be applied rather than WP:WEB. The main criterion of WP:BIO is that the person has been covered in independent reliable secondary sources. However, blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, see WP:SPS. As far as I can see, all sources given in the article are links to blogs. Thus notability is not established --B. Wolterding 08:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a writer whose work has appeared in many internet publications with huge readerships, rather than simply vanity 'blogs'. Nick mallory 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:BIO/WP:WEB. Mackan 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My writing here on Wikipedia appears in publications with huge readerships. That's irrelevant to whether I satisfy our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. To make a case for keeping that actually holds water, you must cite non-trivial articles from reliable independent sources that are about this person. So far, neither the article nor any editor here has cited a single such article. Uncle G 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't seem that there are reliable sources confirming this pseudonymous blogger's notability. "Internet buzz" doesn't amount to much, and in this case is probably created merely by the controversial nature of his opinions on Islam. Deranged bulbasaur 10:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more than "internet buzz". Fjordman's articles are quoted verbatim by people such as Robert Spencer, who's a published author on Islam and the West and Paul Belien who's a known Belgian journalist. His ideas and quotes are being parroted by many people in different places, but that's a bit harder to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misheu (talk • contribs) 2007-05-22 10:47:33
    • He's quoted by a bunch of talking heads in a manner that's impossible to source. Color me unimpressed. Deranged bulbasaur 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's quoted by a bunch of "notable" talking heads in a manner that's impossible to source (if you can find a reference for that) and which propagates itself across the internet. I think that means he satisfies notability but not your sense of proper journalism. That is a reason to keep, not delete. If he wouldn't be so widely quoted and yes, famous, he wouldn't deserve an entry. Misheu 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he's indeed so famous, then certainly others have written about him in reliable publications. This in turn would make him notable. Such references should be added to the article, given they exist. --B. Wolterding 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They have. As stated above, Robert Spencer and Paul Belien have both brought his opinions. The references appear in the article itself. Misheu 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't satisfy our Wikipedia:No original research policy if the only way to determine the truth of the statement that "his ideas and quotes are being parroted by many people in different places" is for readers to go and perform the primary research of counting how many people repeat this person's ideas and quotes and where they are repeated. We cannot just go making up a biography of this person's life and works. That is original research. We need sources. Misheu has made several statements about this person's life and works, but not cited a single source, who has already written about this person in depth, against which xyr statements can be checked. And those are what we need. Without them, this person does not satisfy our notability criteria. Uncle G 12:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The man is famous. The quality of his views is obviously regarded highly. If his chosen method of communication was radio or newspaper I suspect he would not be up for deletion. Mannafredo 10:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "his chosen method of communication was radio or newspaper", it wouldn't be self-published so yeah, maybe. Relevent question is, would anybody hire this man to work for their newspaper/radio channel? Mackan 11:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fame is not tantamount to notability, as noted in the third sentence of WP:NN. Hypothetical comparisons are of dubious value, and the fact is that he isn't in the newspaper or on the radio. There's no inherent reason why we should have to treat those media interchangeably with online content, so the appeal to equanimity is vacuous. Deranged bulbasaur 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • M - I note your point on fame and notability, but would suggest he is indeed becoming a notable figure in his field (religion and society essayist perhaps). DB – I think your use of the word ‘equanimity’ is improper, but will not insult you by suggesting it was vacuous. Mannafredo 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to re-create this article once he has actually become "a notable figure", and when you have reliable sources to prove it.Mackan 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was aware of the more common meaning of the word, but the sense I'm looking for seems to be in some online dictionaries and not in others. Perhaps I would have been better served by the unwieldy "equitableness," but I will "insult" you by saying that I think you're just cavilling (there's one for you) my usage because your argument is wrong. Deranged bulbasaur 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was not your argument that I took exception to, it was your use of the word vacuous, obviously. Your side of the argument seems a reasonable one - so yes, your right, once again, you insult me. Mannafredo 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per B. Wolterding. Mannafredo's argument is interesting, but is a hypothetical unsupported by any verifiable fact. That there are people who agree with this blogger's views is only to be expected (be he ever so inarticulate, any blogger's views are echoed by someone), but until there are independent, published, reliable sources speaking about the subject, as WP:V requires, this article should be deleted.  RGTraynor  13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fjordman is a respected and important essayist especially with regard to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe, and the on going debate as to the state of Western democracies, to remove this entry is a denial of freedom of information. 'Freshfield'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.249.161 (talk • contribs) — 91.105.249.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: The above comment is made by an anonymous IP. Mackan 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability not in question. More in question are possible political motivation of some votes for delete, since notability is so clear. Decoratrix 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Note: This account was created on 17 May. Mackan 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The (possible) political motivations of the delete voters are all but irrelevant, since the delete votes have been policy-based. Asking that people be disregarded when making statements about matters of fact just because of concerns you may have about their motivation is a type of Ad hominem. It's certainly not clear that notability has been established, rather it is quite clear that you're not assuming good faith. Deranged bulbasaur 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Fjordman has become very famous in anti-multiculturalist circles. Very few intellectual opponents of the European Union and multiculturalism are not aware of Fjordman. His arguments are often unique, and his knowledge of European politics and history is so spectacular, his articles should be used in colleges as a way to understand the new European conservative movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icepickds (talk • contribs)

Note: The comment above was made by an account made today, see contrib list. Mackan 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fjordman is a thoughtful, well-informed blogger, now posting via The Brussels Journal. His opinions are well founded. You would not have any hesitation in keeping this entry if he were writing for a major newspaper. Juncal 18:15, 22 May 2007 (DST)
  • Note: The above account has made only 5 edits outside of this AfD. Mackan 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Quite possibly not. Then again, newspapers have reliable and independent fact checking and have reporters who aren't pseudonymous, so that people actually have some assurance that they're dealing with the same person. These are among the reasons why newspapers are considered "reliable sources" per WP:RS, and blogs are not.  RGTraynor  12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy:"These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy". Mackan 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, no independent publications covering this anonymous blogger. Note: allies are likely to post appeals on their blogs, so expect a lot of unregistered or newly-registered users in this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is notable, widely quoted, far more than others who have articles in WP. Jmcnamera 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. People keep saying that he's notable, but all that is just mere assertion until somebody breaks out the reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This vote has been externally canvassed on the blog Gates of Vienna. Mackan 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page seems not to render correctly in firefox. I don't see any content. Deranged bulbasaur 09:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try giving it a little time, it may take a while (I can see it in firefox). Mackan 10:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm actually having troubles loading it myself, now. It works in IE thuogh. Mackan 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely canvassing here. --Haemo 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo, you know of people who had been approached on their talk page? Mackan, you read Gates of Vienna? Misheu 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKS#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets, aka external canvassing. Mackan 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Mentioned in articles of the the Washington Times, 20minutos.es (a spanish TV news?), Salon Magazine, Jewish World Review, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, AINA, and the American Thinker. Sources, via google news archive: [1]. Moreover: Twice at google scholar [2] and in two books at google books [3] Azate 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman is a common last name in all of Scandinavia. Your google scholar and book results have nothing to do with the blogger. The Washington Times didn't mention Fjordman, they mentioned an article by the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tider, which Fjordman had translated. Jewish World Review had re-printed the same article. The Salon mention was on a "letterbox" page, AINA doesn't seem to be a RS, American Thinker is yet another blog. And you know what, all the actual mentions are trivial, per WP:BIO/WP:BIO.Mackan 09:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Google Books: Two of the results (Lester Harry Wright's and Yoel Natan's books) concern the fjordman in question here, the others don't. That's why I said above that there were two results.
- Google Scholar: Same thing. Two papers (M Carr's and Ю Каграманов's) with this guy, the others not. Again, thats why I said two, above.
- "Washington Times didn't mention Fjordman": Check again, they did. Even included an URL to his blog. I see nothing about any "translation", as you claim.
- "Jewish World Review had re-printed the same article": Yes, so what?
- "The Salon mention was on a letterbox page": Right. I retract that one.
- "AINA doesn't seem to be a RS": Why would that be so? The are a regular news agency, specializing in the affairs of catholics in the middle east. If they are good enough for the UN[4], Amnesty International[5], and the US State department[6], but not for you, I think you should rethink your standards.
- "American Thinker is yet another blog": They have a publisher, named editors and dozens of real-name contributors. They also have a blog, but that doesn't make them one. Azate 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman as a common name - Mackan, you keep repeating that claim, but can you prove it? If Google Scholar brings 5 responses, two of which seem to be talking about Fjordman the blogger, how does that prove Fjordman is a common name? 'Mackan' has 100 times more hits on Google Scholar (but not on google, as blogger Fjordman has so many hits) Misheu 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO, he has not "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", he has been mentioned, in passing, by a few of the above results in Google Scholar. Mmoneypenny 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Over 500 people decided to comment on one of his articles: http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/889271.html

The spectacular popularity of Fjordman's work makes him notable. Surely the hundreds of thousands of people who read his work would want to know more about this unique author, and Wikipedia would be the place for them to turn to. I can't believe this is even up for a discussion. Fjordman's work is not only notable, it's unique. If I were a Political Science Professor (which I may be in the near future), I would include some of his work in the required reading to help people understand intellectual European nationalism.
Wikipedia's Jihad?Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Daily Pundit, Global Politician. All came under fire by the same editors. Interestingly, GP (of which I am the senior editor) had profile for a long time without a problem when we ran predominatly liberal articles. Recently, several conservative, anti-Islamist writers joined and bingo, we came under fire. I'm sure it's a coincidence... - Global Politician

I guess I have to participate in this discussion because it was Fjordman's article running in the Global Politician that caused all this trouble. An article on Islamic apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid) cited Fjordman's article in the Global Politician: "Given sharia’s inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, it is de facto a religious apartheid system.– Article in the policy journal, Global Politician.[8]"

Mackan79 apparently disagreed with the concept of Islamic Apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid) and waged his own little Jihad against GP. The author of the article, Urthogie, cited that GP interviewed many key people (for ex., Sri Lankan President after the Tsunami and leaders of every Lebanese political party/grouping right after the Cedar Revolution). MacKan then tried to take down Global Politician and Fjordman Wikipedia pages to prove our worthlessness and, therefore, win his little debate with "Urthogie".

MacKan is also the person who has since decided to put Jihad Watch, the Daily Pundit and Brussels Journal up for AfD.

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.