Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard


 * 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! 10:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Emil Kirkegaard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, sources have no depth of coverage. The footnotes here, here, here and here are all about a controversial 'eugenics' conference secretly held at University College London. These sources mention Kirkegaard in passing (a few sentences), but certainly don't focus on him but on the organiser, James Thompson, the senior academic who organised the conference and is now being investigated. The other sources, here, here and here, are about Kirkegaard and a colleague publishing data about 70,000 users of the dating service OkCupid. These might, debatably, give a shade more notability. But the incident is already covered, IMO more fittingly, here, in our OkCupid article. I don't see that this person rises to notability. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * He has more notability as a pseudoscientist and perhaps the article can be updated if it mentions more about this; for example he set up three journals to publish his pseudoscientific research on race and intelligence and various known neo-Nazis and white supremacists either review submissions for the journals such as Kevin McDonald or submit papers to be published. MacDonald clearly has some notability. Alongside the Mankind Quarterly, Kirkegaard's journals are the most notable for scientific racists to publish.Storyfellow (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Kirkegaard was featured in many British newspapers on the 10 and 11th of January where they exposed his controversial comments about supporting child rape. He appears to have gained widespread recognition for this a few days ago but only a few lines in each newspaper. This article contains a bit more information about Kirkegaard and his involvement in the eugenics conference, it is from the London Student newspaper . I have seen this newspaper cited on Wikipedia so is it considered WP:RS ? Rebecca Bird (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About reliable sources: yes, the London student paper is probably reliable for this. But then I'm altogether not questioning the sources' reliability — clearly not, as they include The Guardian and The Telegraph — but the depth of coverage, see WP:BASIC. In my opinion, Kirkegaard hasn't received significant coverage. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC).
 * Are you aware of WP:BLP1E? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I am aware about it. But he is known for more than just the child rape controversy. There was the OkCupid controversy he was involved with as well. Rebecca Bird (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have been featured for more than 1 event. OKCupid data release gathered worldwide attention, but I've also been featured in a Swiss newspaper (also negative tone), mentioned in a Norwegian newspaper, and wrote a reply to it (see here), and been mentioned for discussing blockchain technology for use in direct and fluid democracy. I've furthermore been interviewed for Danish television a while back in regards to a story on Wikileaks, though I can't right now find the clip. Deleet (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - for the reasons given by nom: none of the sources establish his notability, they just mention him in passing. &mdash;Ashley Y 07:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for now - the London conference is the only coverage of real notability, and that'd be WP:BLP1E - and that conference is only notable because of the Toby Young link. But I don't think there's anywhere near enough to mention Kirkegaard in the Young article. Don't think he yet clears the bar for pseudoscience coverage. But he may well do in future - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Best to delete for now and wait if he gets anymore media coverage for anything else in the future then it may be recreated possibly. There has been talk elsewhere about creating a section on the recent eugenics conference on the History of University College London article. Kirkegaard could be mentioned there for now. Rebecca Bird (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE &mdash;Ashley Y 03:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - agreed with the comments above. At the moment, he seems to clearly fail WP:BIO, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources of the man himself. This is a BLP1E at best, and the relevant content is already in the Toby Young article. Robofish (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E etc. Collect (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete More in-depth coverage in reliable high quality sources required to justify a stand alone bio article. Right now WP:BLP1E is not enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This reminds me of the rubbish spewed by the SPLC in their fear mongering campaigns, totally ignoring size and impact and real following of extremists, or the fact that some of these extremist groups exist more because of intelligence service operatives on the mailing lists than genuine members, and the latter exist because the SPLC claims there needs to be monitoring, in a highly questionable, self-feeding scheme that mainly serves to continue to increse the non-cause beneficial ever aggressive fundraising by the SPLC. Wikipedia needs to stop acting as an auxiliar to the SPLC fundraising scam.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What an utterly idiotic set of statements, John Pack Lambert. I think reading all that far-right shit is seriously impeding your mental functions. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Drmies, please be civil and assume good faith. &mdash;Ashley Y 04:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow for discussion of Sandstein's sourcing, which came late in the discussion.
 * Comment The creation of Emil Kirkegaard's Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center or a fundraising scam. They did not create his article, and as far as I know they have not even covered him on there website (yet), so the SPLC claims are nonsense. Rebecca Bird (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) — striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted by the subject above, he's received a thorough profile in Le Temps, a quality national Swiss newspaper, in April 2017, before this notorious conference was reported on. Together with the coverage related to that I think GNG is met and BLP1E is no longer an issue. Unclear how any of this might relate to the American SPLC as argued above.  Sandstein   21:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, the Le Temps coverage means Kirkegaard has one substantial article in a reliable source, and the set of passing mentions in the possibly-BLP1E event. That brings him near the threshold, but given the substantial delete consensus that the "BLP1E" sources did not add up to notability, I'm not convinced that adding one good source really brings him over the line just yet. If The Guardian or The Independent (say) had covered him in more detail, then the outcome would be different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Deleet (Emil Kirkegaard). His activities are not particularly notable. That started with the pirate party in Denmark, with open source issues and mostly with controversies concerning immigration, which involved self-published articles on openpsych.net, along with a few peer-reviewed articles. A number of far-right personalities were involved with openpsych.net; nowadays the terminology in vogue might be alt-right. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All papers in Mankind Quarterly and OpenPsych are peer-reviewed, so that claim about just self-publishing (MQ papers are not self-published) or non-reviewed is not true. I have a few articles in review at conventional journals as well expected to be published this year, mainly just to counter these sorts of claims. (Not that it directly matters to the deletion question, just noting the inaccuracies.) Deleet (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The definition of "Peer" taken by both is so narrow that it becomes useless. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable under GN or ACADEMIC.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think Sandstein's source helps, but does not entirely solve the problems that the nom and many others point out. There just isn't enough solid coverage here to make it. Waggie (talk) 00:13, 25 January 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.