Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André Nilsen

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was apparently speedy deletion. The deletion log shows:
 * 13:34, 6 Jan 2005 Cyrius deleted André Nilsen (recreation of vfd deleted content)
 * 16:29, 5 Jan 2005 Jimfbleak deleted André Nilsen (listed for speedy deletion)
 * 20:52, 4 Jan 2005 Jpgordon deleted André Nilsen (recreated (again, don't they get bored?) after vfd deletion)
 * 20:12, 4 Jan 2005 Mikkalai deleted André Nilsen (restored after vfd deletion)
 * 18:06, 3 Jan 2005 Rdsmith4 deleted Andre Nilsen (content was: '#redirect André Nilsen')
 * 02:08, 2 Jan 2005 Neutrality deleted André Nilsen (Previously deleted on VfD)
 * 20:47, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "Andre Nilsen" (1 revisions restored)
 * 20:46, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen" (1 revisions restored)
 * 20:44, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen"
 * 20:43, 1 Jan 2005 Mikkalai restored "André Nilsen"
 * 14:37, 1 Jan 2005 Silsor deleted André Nilsen (unprotected: content was: '''This page was deleted after voting (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/André Nilsen) and is currently protected from repeated restoring. Please apply ...')
 * 23:19, 31 Dec 2004 Niteowlneils deleted Andre Nilsen (redir to deleted article--content was: '#redirect André Nilsen')

Closing this discussion. Rossami (talk) 04:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

André Nilsen
Either delete it, or keep it, but putting up a message saying it's deleted is the worst of the three possibilities. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 16:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. (Note various warnings.) Sensible MWOT response to repeated vandalism, violates no existing policy AFAIK. Discuss at talk:André Nilsen or some other appropriate forum if a policy change is needed. Andrewa 20:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It violates Avoid self-references as well as Protection policy. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, as long as it needs to be protected to prevent re-creation. We've spent too much time on this wannabe already. Niteowlneils 23:27, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Happy keep year!!!  GRider\talk 00:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be kept because there clearly is a demand for it (a number of people in several countries have either contributed to it or recreated it already) and because I do not see the benefit of interpreting the criteria of notability excessively narrowly. Cheers, Erik
 * keep protected until additional reasons of notability will be provided. The proposals are welcome at the article's talk page. Mikkalai 20:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this protected statement makes for a good encyclopedia article. He may not be notable, but it seems to me that all the reasons for deletion go out the window when we decide to have a page here anyway.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately wiki doesn't have other means of banning certaing page names from recreation of persistent trolls. I even gave them some slack by posting the old text in the talk page talk:André Nilsen, so that they could enhance his notability. I have nothing against Mr. Nilsen. I am against the promotionalist efforts to present a student organisation as an advisor of global importance, with powerful spamming wherever possible in wikipedia. Mikkalai 21:39, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately wiki doesn't have other means of banning certaing page names from recreation of persistent trolls. AFAICT, there is no consensus that this particular page name should be "banned from recreation" in the first place.  If such consensus is reached, that this page name should indefinitely be stopped from creation regardless of content, then I would support implementation of such a solution in a manner which doesn't otherwise break the functionality of the wiki.  If it's so important that a page with this name never be created, then I'm sure someone will be able to code up a feature which allows this.  But creating an article saying that the article was deleted defeats the purpose of deleting the article in the first place.  I am against the promotionalist efforts to present a student organisation as an advisor of global importance, with powerful spamming wherever possible in wikipedia.  Well, then the best solution is to create a neutral page on the topic.  Page protection can be used to ensure neutrality, if necessary.  Maybe I'm wrong, and you can explain to me what purpose this serves beyond that provided by the solution of protecting an actual article rather than a policy-violating self-reference.  anthony &#35686;&#21578; 00:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it deleted: it already died a VfD death once. If it's recreated (again), speedy it.  -Sean Curtin 06:53, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Old discussion
Vanity, promo. Same anonymous editor has been salting other articles with links to oxfordgovernance.org. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It is possible that the figure has achieved academic notability, but "also published many" doesn't do it.  What is remarkable?  How is this person a leader?  What effects has this person had?  The random professor test is important here:  being an academic is tough, but it puts one in the company of tens of thousands.  Setting oneself above and beyond the other fry in your shoal is what makes one an encyclopedic figure. Geogre 20:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * He is based at my college and is not just an academic who publishes but has founded several organisations working on politics and international affairs. Is that not leadership? Marie S.
 * Comment: I honestly don't know.  Without the ability to verify, I have to work on the presumptive principle.  I know a fellow who runs the Spenser Society (for the study of Edmund Spenser) and therefore automatically became the editor of Spenser Quarterly.  That's great stuff, and he's an outstanding scholar, but it's not really a matter of notability:  that's high achievement in a specialized field.  Professors at leading institutions do that as a par for the course.  That makes thousands of people around the world.  Something more is needed.  Geogre 22:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep . The above argument does not make sense. As opposed to the very specialist example of the Spenser expert, this guy seems to be a generalist who is involved in a range of areas from security and politics to business and economics. There is also no automaticity in what he does - he seems to have built it all up from scratch. Hanover. (this was added by 207.44.180.48.  BLANKFAZE  | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 01:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC))
 * All other edits by above anon seem to be just vandalism. I don't think this vote should be counted. jni 06:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just because someone has a CV doesn?t mean they are worth an article. Wait until he's done something really noteworthy for good or ill.  Lumos3 23:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete fvw* 00:00, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
 * Delete jni 11:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite interesting. Rich. - Oxford.
 * Above vote is 163.1.160.62's first contribution to Wikipedia. jni 06:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - he's doing some great work.. Christiane
 * Keep. I agree with some of the concerns above but this isn't just the average CV. And the comparison to the Spenser Society truly misses the point! RM-B
 * Delete, not noteworthy for inclusion. Megan1967 02:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.