Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Ro


 * 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. The community discussion concluded that the subject does not currently fulfill Wikipedia's inclusion criteria with respect to notability.  Sandstein  21:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lars Ro

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested speedy - originally marked as not showing the significance of the subject. I am posting to AfD as a part of process but offer no personal opinion on the article at this time. -- VS talk 12:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

when i just logged in, i was met with "I have nominated Lars Ro, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Ro."

so here i come to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Ro, and what is yr explanation? that it was "originally marked as not showing the significance of the subject." as i wrote on the talk page, how exactly do you want me to indicate the importance or significance? starting the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history isn't IMPORTANT? isn't SIGNIFICANT?

then you write that you are posting this "as a part of process" despite the fact that you have "no personal opinion"? first of all, can you please explain to me how...

1. Person X seeing page Y questions its significance. 2. Person X decides to speedily delete it. 3. The maker of page Y begs to differ. 4. Person Z decides to non-speedily delete it. ...fulfills Wikipedia process?!? am i seriously missing something here?

the guidelines here say "Editing - If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." aha! can this page be improved? (or merged? or is it better suited for one of the Wikimedia sister projects?)

my guess would be, that if you "offer no personal opinion on the article at this time," that precludes you having a STRONG sense that we might as well give up hope for this page because there's no way in hell it could be improved - OUT with it. it sounds to me like you don't really have a sense of whether this page merits inclusion in Wikipedia or not. you just noticed that it was "originally marked" as blah blah blah, so you might as well just tow the line for towing the line's sake. :( Larsro (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Kind of. VirtualSteve's actions seem reasonable to me. The page was nominated for speedy deletion, which was contested by adding the hangon tag. VirtualSteve appears to have noticed that there was disagreement, and therefore he removed the speedy deletion tags (which he did not have to do) and sent the article here where the matter can be discussed by a number of editors, instead of leaving the issue to a single administrator. Your article actually will get a wider hearing here than it would via the speedy deletion process.  As to whether the article belongs or not, I will have to take the time to read your sources. If you have reliable independent sources that show notability, your article will survive. I will say that at first blush, article may be OK - as I said, the sources will determine that - but the associated band and record label articles you created probably will fail our guidelines (and I see that they have speedy deletion tags as well). As a general note, your username makes it seem that you have a conflict of interest in these articles. This will often draw other's attention, and lead to requests for speedy deletion. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  12:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. i see. well, then VirtualSteve, thanks for removing the speedy deletion tags.  i'm glad this article at least was sent to a place where it could be discussed, instead of some book-burning, autocratic, power-tripper deleting subject matter that they have no interest in.  why?  for kicks?  the user who nominated virtually every page i have had anything to do with for speedy deletion is into horror flicks, mass murderers, and TV-shows!  so what is it their business to be tagging articles for rapid destruction which have NOTHING to do with his or her interests?  it seems to me that you have some serious design flaws here at Wikipedia...
 * oh, yr up for taking the time to read my sources? wow!!!  i'm glad to hear that happens here, and that not all users are impatient, instant book-burning addicts.  i SINCERELY hope that yr right:  "If you have reliable independent sources that show notability, your article will survive."  insh'Allah!!!  as for the other band and record label articles i've contributed to, i think it's already too late.  speedily deleted...  (shaking my head...)  re: conflict of interest, as i mentioned on the talk page, i have written this page as neutrally as i possibly can.  what more can i do? you administrators & Wikiheads are MORE THAN WELCOME to consult the sources, do your own research, and rewrite it from a drier, more 'objective' perspective. be my guest!!!  this whole "ah, balanced reporting takes time & energy.  show me to the speed delete button" i can't say i have much respect for. Larsro (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [EC] Lasro - firstly with respect you should read our conflict of interest guidelines. Secondly you should come to the editors talk page if you want to ask these questions as they would be better suited there.  Thirdly you should go the history of the page and note that I did not speedy the article (as you note) but rather as the administrator faced with a speedy request; and you, an obvious editor who had a conflict of interest, and who had placed a hang-on request, I chose to give the article a chance at the debate which we call Articles for Deletion.  That is why I removed the speedy and hang-on tags - indeed if I did not another administrator could have still speedily deleted the article.  My moving it as a part of the process in this case gives you a period of about 5 or so days to improve the article, show us that there is no conflict of interest (which will probably be hard for you to do).  You should also note that by using the words Procedural Nomination and having no personal opinion I am in fact also doing the article the courtesy of not giving it its first delete nomination.  Finally you should probably read about how important it is to assume good faith rather than rant about a page being able to be improved - as I have no difficulty with the concept of a page being improved but I do have some difficulty with a page which appears at first glance to be a vanity page written by the subject of the article.-- VS  talk 13:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sure, i'll read them. as i wrote to CyberGhostface on the talk page, i was invited to "* Start the... article or add a request for it."  it didn't say "WARNING!  WARNING!  THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE BUT YOU!  IF THIS PAGE REFERS TO YOU PERSONALLY, DON'T TOUCH IT WITH A 10 FOOT STICK!"  it said i could start the page, and i started it.  if you are SO concerned about the monstrous possibility that someone might write something that refers to themself, might have a - hold on to yr seats, folks - conflict... of... interest... - why don't you suggest that something about WP:AUTO and/or WP:COI be clearly written on "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name" pages?  that would help avoid problems, wouldn't it?
 * i tried searching for 'editors talk page' without success - i don't know what yr referring to. i repeat myself:  VirtualSteve, thanks for removing the speedy deletion tags.  thanks for giving it a chance at debate.  thanks for not giving it a delete nomination.  the way i see it, if yr 1st glance is that a page is more about vanity than substance, why not react in a way which calls into question the more vanity-ish elements to leave what is of substance intact?  i really don't understand this impulsion to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just speedily delete knowledge instead of patiently whittling it down...Larsro (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your 10 Foot stick idea is the start of a slipery slope that ends with the page including the entirity of WP policies and guidelines, which would be overlong and unreadable. However, once you do click the "start the article" link, what it does include, is (as the first line) "Before creating an article, please read Your first article" in that suggested article, it does state as the first entry in a list of "Things to avoid", "Articles about yourself, your friends, your website, a band you're in, your teacher, a word you made up, or a story you wrote".  We don't mean to judge you for overlooking it.  This AfD is merely the process to resolve such mistakes. -Verdatum (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Vanity page written by the subject. I'm also the one who had speedied it before.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)'''
 * yeah, CyberGhostface, yr the one who had speedied it before. feeling like you have done a sevice to humanity now?  why not write yr observations on the page about how to improve it instead of rallying for quick destruction?  oh, and that was you who speedied Sfu-ma-to, which has now been deleted.  hmmm.  was that you who got Purr_Mama_Resistor deleted too?  and Purderous_Magina_Records?  go team... Larsro (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Larsro, Wikipedia works by building consensus. One person cannot cause an article to be deleted.  If articles have been deleted, it will be because consensus was reached that they should be deleted.  If you feel that you are being "singled out" in some way, take a step back and look at the articles you create; they will have been removed because they broke one or more of the rules.  Now this doesn't necessarily mean that the subject of these articles will NEVER be permitted on Wikipedia, just that the articles as they stood were not.  Have a look at WP:YFA (particularly the Things to avoid section) as well as WP:NOT, WP:CITE and WP:ACM, then see if you can craft an article that follows these rules (try creating the article as a subpage of your user space (such as User:Larsro\Purr Mama Resistor for example) then asking an Administrator, or other editor to review it.  They will then be able to suggest ways to improve the article, or point out areas that may breach the rules.)  Good luck. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i would like to challenge the holy cow of Wikipedia being a phenomenon which works by consensus. one person can apparently, devoid of any apparent interest in the subject matter, flag an article for speedy deletion.  according to the Criteria for speedy deletion,
 * there are "limited cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion." where's the consensus in doing that?  furthermore, "in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead."  so 'reasonable doubt' is left up to the individual.  not very democratic or consensus-oriented, is it?  "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate."  hmmm.  CyberGhostface, did you spend many milliseconds considering whether the articles i had contributed to could be improved, stubbed, merged, redirected, or handled with some other action?  pray tell.  i do feel i was singled out & witch-hunted.  someone notices that one page was edited frequently, sees reason to question its autobioraphical-ness or inherent conflict of interest, and then decides to nominate all the pages i initiated or contributed to, for speedy deletion.  if i hypothetically ran Wikipedia, if an article seemed to break one or more significant rules, i would explore how it could be modified so as to respect those rules.  i wouldn't get an itchy trigger finger & think "aha!  here's a chance to be inconsiderate & shut some pages DOWN.  NOW."


 * Delete. I've taken the time to read all the sources (forced to use Google to translate I'm afraid), and I just don't see the notability. The Geiger.dk review of Sfu-ma-to is probably the best of the bunch, since it at least appears to be independent. Of the others, you have a couple of pages promoting FredsVagt ved Christiansborg, but they do not appear to be third party reliable sources, you have a press release, a article about your grandfather, and a review you wrote.  You've done some interesting things, and clearly had some success as a performer, but I'm afraid I don't think you meet WP's guidelines. What I looked for and failed to find, but would help you out, is if Sfu-ma-to (or really any of your bands) had charted a song on any national chart. I looked for Denmark, but couldn't find anything. If so, the group would meet our music guidelines and you could at least recreate that article and include some of this information there. I'm afraid that's the only path to notability (for our purposes) I see at this time. Good luck to you. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for yr time. re: notability, starting the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history isn't IMPORTANT?  isn't SIGNIFICANT?  trust me, if you were from Danmark, you would see things differently.  FredsVagt Christiansborg has become an integral nexus of modern Danish culture.  i would be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that, within the Danish context, Danish wiki-heads wouldn't be scratching their heads about whether there was sufficient notability or not.  maybe that's a possible solution, to put this page up within the Danish wikisite?  (not that the thought of meticulously translating the whole thing brings me much joy...  arrgh...)  i'm not arguing for inclusion here on the basis of "interesting things," or modest "success as a performer."  i'm arguing it on the basis of having co-started the longest-running peace demonstration in Danish history, in fact, being FredsVagt #1, the first one who sat down & got the ball rolling 6 and a half years ago.  i will do my best to get Danes in Danmark at the moment to scan in some of the first newspaper articles about FredsVagt, how is that?  cheers! 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article really doesn't assert any kind of notability. The fact that it was intially autobiographical doesn't bother me, as the article seems pretty NPOV, but, despite being fairly well written, it just doesn't seem like a notable subject.--  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 13:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * here we go again. how (co-)starting the longest-running, permanent peace demonstration in Danish history can be interpreted as not asserting any kind of notability is beyond me.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No indication of real notability. Some vague connections to other things that may be notable, but if they are they should have articles and not this person. The subject/creator heaping abuse on people deemed not helpful. --Dhartung | Talk 17:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and here we go again again. if you have a suggestion as to how to best create an article or articles with maximum notability, shoot!  i apologize if my responses come across as me "heaping abuse on people."  that wasn't my intention.  i (and i get the sense that i am far from the first Wikipedia contributor to experience this) am particularly frustrated at these reductive, eliminative, stress-inducing, "speedy deletion" style ways of decreasing the potential to share information here on the site.  it seems quite counter-intuitive to me, and as something which runs directly contrary to the basic principals upon which Wikipedia was founded (according to my admittedly novice-at-best sense of what these basic principals are. Larsro (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a question of how to create an article, its a question that the accomplishments, though interesting, do not appear to have reached the level of getting sufficient 3rd party published notice to be appropriate in what is, after all, an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - FredsVagten may be notable, but notability is not inherited. The cofounder of a notable event is not inherently notable.  He instead requires evidence of (from WP:Notability) "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to establish notability.  I can find no reason to believe that such coverage exists.  Also, much of the content appears to violate WP:BLP. -Verdatum (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep From my POV Wikipedia should not only pass common knowledge. I am danish and assure you that Fredsvagten refers to Lars Ro as the very first activist honoured if you ask them. Without his efforts it would not have been. But his name is not known in the danish publicity, because of the way media is functioning; always reshouting what the spindoctors have already told us is important. Wikipedia can join this chorus of singing the tribute to the Emperor of his new clothes and the glory of war. Or Wikipedia can give room for a slightly alternative view of what is important, ie peace and sustainable humanity. So in Denmark there is an interest in the question: Who is Lars Ro.--130.226.71.190 (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Your assertion that in Denmark there is an interest in the question: Who is Lars Ro leads me to suggest that maybe the Danish Wikipedia would be a better place for the article? It certainly appears that most editors who have contributed to this discussion are in agreement that the subject is not notable enough for the English Wikipedia. --  JediLofty UserTalk 14:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment AnonIP, if what you say is true, and someone creates an English translation of the Danish FredVagten article, I would be willing to change my vote from delete to redirect to FredVagten. -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (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.