Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland


 * 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   merge to Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland. v/r - TP 00:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Both of the persons convicted now have their seperate articles, in addition to a third article about the trial. Solotaig (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. We cannot delete the history of the article before a split—deleting that record of contributors to the article will create issues with the GFDL licensing of the article! I have reverted the split into the article's situation before Solotaig's attempted split this morning; since French and Moland don't appear to be individually notable, three articles don't appear to be warranted, only one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia has routines for dealing with articles that are superfluous. And wikipedia has routines for dealing with record of contributions, even after an article is deleted. Please do not play the "alarmist card"!
 * If C.Fred is concerned about having 3 articles about 3 seperately notable subjects, then maybe he can suggest merging absolutely all wikipedia articles into one. I am sure that he can concoct a good reason for doing so.--Solotaig (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing the alarmist card; I'm discussing the notability of the subjects and whether they warrant an article(s). If they aren't notable enough for an article as a group, they aren't notable enough for separate articles. I think there is sufficient notability, and whether or not to split is not a discussion for AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the nomination for deletion stated nothing about lack of notability. (But please feel free to nominate the article for deletion for that reason if you feel like it.) Please do not try to turn the discussion into "If they aren't notable enough for an article as a group" — your words. Now it seems that you are trying to deal the "manipulation card".--Solotaig (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have any problem with the notability of any of the following articles, then that is a seperate discussion.
 * Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland
 * Tjostolv Moland
 * Joshua French--Solotaig (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please avoid silly and off-topic discussions of "combining all Wikipedia articles into one article." Edison (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge all into Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland See WP:BLP1E and Notability (events) which says "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." These two are known only for one thing, a crime, and it is inappropriate to have two, three, or four articles about them and the one event they are known for. A merge could preserve the editing history and satisfy GFDL. Edison (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge all per Edison (a rename will be necessary though); BLP1E is spot-on. See also WP:CRIME. There's very little to say about the individuals (as opposed to, say, other notorious Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, which is why he has his own article separate from 2011 Norway attacks), so everything should be merged into the one article on the event. Thanks Solotaig for calling to our attention the fact that this was fragmenting into a lot of redundant articles. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * They are also notable for being kicked out of Telemark Battalion for trying to recruit fellow-soldiers into a seperate "security organization" in Africa. (I am not sure if they were kicked out together, or at the same time, or on the same charges.) --Solotaig (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * '''Merge all into:
 * Joshua French and
 * Tjostolv Moland and
 * Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland, and then delete the namesake of this discussion.--Solotaig (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That they are as notable as some of the soldiers on the following list, is a seperate discussion.--Solotaig (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at WP:MAD. If this doesn't change your opinion about merging and deleting, please propose another solution for maintaining the history. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did read past the beginning, "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement ...".
 * Yeah, I have a suggestion: Change the name of the "Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland" article into "The trial and conviction of ... and ...", and then keep the credits/attributions. (And I hereby waive all and any claims to attribution for my edits.) Then we have one article about each convicted perp and 2 articles with the same name "Trial of ... and ...". And then (and only then) I authorize deletion of "my" trial-article (because I don't give a flying fluck about being credited/attributed.)
 * Maybe that would be to easy? Because at least 2 of the contributors to this discussion have hinted that the whole things is sooooo difficult if not impossible. Difficult problems require difficult solutions?--Solotaig (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a history merge to the Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland article that Solotaig created, with the combined article retaining the Trial of… title. In fact, that's probably the better solution than a three-way split. Solotaig, if you agree, shall we close this AfD with a speedy keep and move the article thusly? —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the seperate articles about Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland are not included in your suggestion, then I agree. Those 2 articles have to run their own course, as far as receiving seperate nominations for deletion (which will not have my support).--Solotaig (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge – There's useful and referenced information that should be merged to Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland before the article is deleted and unaccessible. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not a problem. Even if/when the article gets deleted, the information will be accessible on my user page .--Solotaig (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it won't. That's a copy and paste of the text, not the edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The "... referenced information" is all there! (But the only uncomplicated way of keeping the edit history, is by following your suggestion of 19:03, 5 September 2011 — which I support if my stipulation of 19:13, 5 September 2011 will be heeded.)--Solotaig (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge unless there is sourced activities of them doing stuff together that is unrelated to the arrest and trial (which there doesn't seem to be). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge all as per WP:BLP1E. Agree with Edison. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:14, 12 September 2011 (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.