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. None but the nominator opined in favor of deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. Obviously he's widely read/quoted in some section of the right-wing blogosphere, but no reliable sources exist, so all Wikipedia can do is list places where his columns have been republished and summarize his views using primary sources. Prezbo (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be regarded as an authority by notable others, and he is widely cited, so I believe notability is sufficiently established. __meco (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically arguing that notability is inherited: if notable people see someone as an authority, they are also notable.Prezbo (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does work that way, doesn't it? Certainly if several notable sources regard someone as important, that would adduce to establish notability. __meco (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added 4 instances of his being cited outside the blogosphere. His POV is referred to both as an example of good reasoning and as an example of extremism, including in scholarly articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the scholarly articles have more than two sentences about him. They can't actually be used to build an article.Prezbo (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do, however, establish notability. However, I disagree. They're all using him as a prominent example, and at least two include a substantial quote. If you meant "can't be used to give us more information on him," then I agree. But that isn't the issue here.Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2010 (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.