Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes H. Berg Jr. (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Johannes H. Berg Jr.
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography without indication of notability. Created in 2004, and doesn't seem to have seen a non-(semi-)automated edit since. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sdkb (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Moving biography. Early historical example of what Wikipedia can be, in a good way. Nothing is disputed about the content of the article. —Doncram (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. No non-obituary sources in the article. If other sources are found, please ping me so I can reconsider this vote. SportingFlyer  T · C  03:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing substantial given by a Google search. With all due respect to the keep !vote above none of those are valid reasons to keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i know about NOTMEMORIAL as a guideline or whatever it is. As a redirect that was created in 2007 or 2008.  Substantial discussion/guideline stuff along those lines was created later than this article, which I believe was fine by all standards back when it was created in 2004.  We are not bound to enforce every piddling technicality that one can drum up, you know, by the way.
 * Note there were 9 "keep" !votes vs. just 2 "delete" (counting nominator) in 2005 first AFD. We don't have to disrespect those people either.
 * I wonder if this person was himself a Wikipedian, that is not mentioned. If they were, then maybe something could be done at Deceased Wikipedians.  The first persons covered there died in 2005.
 * It is also unfortunate there is only an i.p. address for the original, main contributor here. --Doncram (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No disrespect is intended for anybody involved. However, all that has been said in favor of keeping this article, both in 2005 and now, has been trivial and hasn't shown that Mr. Berg passes our notability guideline, which is not in any event a "piddling technicality". There are no grandfather clauses on Wikipedia, which is a very different place now from in 2004; all articles must meet 2019 standards, regardless of when they were created. Perhaps another website can more properly honor Mr. Berg. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Honestly I do not think that the 2005 AFD would have muster by 2019 standards. None of them on either side cite any policy rationale or even give an actual reason other than “I don’t see any reason to delete” or “Other stuff exists”. Some of them don’t even provide a reason at all, just say ‘keep’. I personally don’t have any objection to keeping this article, but I do think that it needs better/stronger sourcing to show that it meets the WP:General Notability Guideline. It’s not enough to prove that he existed and arguments along the lines of, “A lot of people contributed to this article” or “it would be disrespectful not to have this article” aren’t good enough either. Perhaps someone with the appropriate language skills would be able to go through the article on Norwegian Wikipedia and see if the sources there can be translated and used here to strengthen this article? Omanlured (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the most egregious failure of the not memorial guidelines I have ever seen. The last few lines of this artile are totally worded as a memorial. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing memorializing obituaries which this article totally is. Articles like this are everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, providing coverage of European males over people anywhere else and having an over emphasis on coverage of fantasy works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2019 (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.