Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanne Tolg


 * 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, consensus seems to be that WP:ONEEVENT applies, especially given that the corresponding article on Norwegian Wikipedia was also deleted. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hanne Tolg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notable for One Event. The article for document.no already contains a section about this person that duplicates this article almost word-for-word. Per the One Event guidelines, this article should be turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of the article for her employer. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I added the section on Hanne Tolg in the document.no page after first creating the Hanne Tolg page. And, yes, the wording is similar and should be adjusted. I would favor moving the discussion from the document.no page to the Hanne Tolg page rather than deleting the Hanne Tolg page. Hanne Tolg is a notable writer in Norway; in 2016 she topped the list of shared news stories on two dates (Dec 24 and May 27) Storyboard 2016 This makes her one of the most-read/most-shared Norwegian journalists, so this is not a one-event article. Also, the campaign against her did not stop when she resigned, it is ongoing. Do a search on her name to find it. Geringe (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did many searches, and yes, the debate might be ongoing but it still counts as One Event Exemplo347 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the campaign/debate being one event. Anyway, I've revised the text on the document.no page, duplicate wordings have been removed and a link to the Hanne Tolg page is there instead. Also, I've added information about rankings of her articles Geringe (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That may have been a bit premature - that text will probably need to be re-added if this article does not survive this AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It can easily be reinserted. However, I believe Hanne Tolg is a notable person and that her article should remain in Wikipedia. Geringe (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, as you wrote the article in the first place it's only natural that you believe that. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The campaign against Hanne Tolg is core to the freedom-of-speech detbae in our increasingly internet-based societies. Also Hanne Tolg is one of the most-read political commentators in Norway today, as shown by the provided statistics. As such, this is not a 'one-event' article. Howcome (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the things that are core to this debate are Wikipedia's policies. It's not a freedom-of-speech issue here - it's Wikipedia's policy that people who are only notable (not famous, not popular, but notable) for one event should, where possible, be included in a more appropriate pre-existing article. Please don't try to muddy things by making it about anything other than the issue I raised in the nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and assume good faith. My comment addressed your claim of being a "one-issue" article and there's no need to attach "muddy" to it. Howcome (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, well let's agree to disagree that a simple word like "muddy" is somehow uncivil and move on. If you could explain, strictly by sticking to matters of Wikipedia's policies, why the subject of this article does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT then please feel free. This discussion is about this article and Wikipedia's policies - it's not about any other external issues. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been extended since the WP:ONEEVENT nomination was filed. In addition to the campaign incident, I have added reference to Storyboard's statistics. In these, one can see that Hanne Tolg tops the lists of articles shared on two separate days in 2016, making her a notable writer in Norway. Geringe (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You added a single sentence, linking to those stats - like I said before, popularity and notability aren't the same thing. If anything, all those stats prove are that her articles were popular on those specific dates. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the short length of the paragraph is your remaining issue, this can easily be fixed through normal editing. Remember, deletion is a last-resort meassure as per the guidelines Articles_for_deletion Geringe (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, WP:ONEEVENT is the issue with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A nearly identical article with the same references on no.wikipedia.org is also currently up for deletion. I think that if that is deleted, which is probably likely, then we have our answer. MB 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been keeping an eye on that one (thanks to a popular, search-engine-based machine translation service!) and it seems like the arguments are pretty similar - even down to the same two people !voting Keep. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The Norwegian-language version of this article has been deleted, see here for info. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable blogger. The subject of this article was already found to be not notable and the article was deleted on the Norwegian Wikipedia (with its considerably lower notability requirements and greater knowledge of Norwegian topics); as the closing admin at the Norwegian Wikipedia noted, no established editors supported keeping the article. Also note that the article seems quite biased in its presention of the conflict with her former employer, which constitutes the bulk of the article, and that the only proper third party source included, an article titled North Wales fire service employee quits amid investigation into alleged posts on far-right website in the North Wales Daily Post local newspaper, doesn't even mention her by name. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, clear 1E case, that even the no.wp deleted the article is telling.  Sandstein   17:18, 28 January 2017 (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.