Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa

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 Keep, though until there is more information available, it would make sense to merge it to some list. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 06:39Z

[edit] Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa

Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested speedy deletion. No notability assertion per WP:BIO, no sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep assuming that sources backing up the claim to his portfolio are provided. I'm inclined to say that that would be sufficient notability, but I'd like him to have done something more than just hold the portfolio if it all possible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, unless notability can be established. Doing so would be difficult, a google search mainly results in copies of the article. --Nevhood 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as above. Eldereft 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep sources from Norwegian Government and Prime Ministers Office added. Both from first 10 GHits. Nuttah68 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strøng keep Nøtåble. Referenced. Keep. --Dweller 11:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete References aren't articles, and articles have more than 5 words in them. If the author can't be bothered to tell us about the politician, then why are we supposed to take on homework from him or her? Utgard Loki 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded by end of this AfD. A one-liner does nobody any good on wiki, those are available by the hundred on the net Alf^Photoman 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment an article being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Nuttah68 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

ehm, yes but it nobody is expanding it, it is just a waste of storage space Alf^Photoman 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That, again, is irrelevent. Nuttah68 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Being a stub is a reason for deletion, if it's a substub. See A1 in the category:speedy deletion. Some people think "Old Hickory is a stoplight" is a stub, and others think it's an A1 speedy delete. So, if something like that can be a speedy delete, then a totally uninformative article can be an AfD deletion. "Max is a politician (note.note.note)" is pretty darned uninformative. You'd pretty much already know that before you typed the name into the "Search" box or see it as a blue link. Utgard Loki 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please cast your eye over Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed --Dweller 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Hmmm, "may" fr. OE moghte, "possible or conditional." Ok, now what was the point you were making? Don't we have to have an article to have an article to keep? Isn't an article a bit more than "Jimmy is the one who cracked corn?" I say this because, if he was, then I don't care. Utgard Loki 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, only sources available indicate that he actually was a minister in a Norwegian government but evidently without lasting impact and/or notable laws passed during his tenure. I don't think that just doing (better said : holding) one's job is being notable (sorry, found this trying to expand the article) Alf^Photoman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  Comment One does wonder from your contributions here if you've read Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:BIO specifically states "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are notable. Even if he'd picked his nose for the two years, he'd pass our guideline. --Dweller 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

and just because of that I provoke a little, those guidelines should be revised Alf^Photoman 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to involve yourself in a consensual debate about amending our policies, but we must follow the ones in being, not the ones you'd like us to have. Until we have them, if you catch my drift. Head on over to WT:BIO and make a proposal. --Dweller 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well lets see: (quote) This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits.(unquote)

looks like I have been reading the guidelines in its entirety Alf^Photoman 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That's why I referred to it as "guidelines", rather than "policy". Our policy is WP:N. That page doesn't deal with detail - it refers you to the guideline WP:BIO for the detail of current consensus of what kind of people are and aren't regarded as notable. Where WP:BIO is so very clear, it'd be very difficult for you to argue against applying it; an example might be someone appointed to minister of state, who died before taking office. That'd be arguable. This isn't.

--Dweller 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

and that is interpreting the guideline, my example is adhering to them Alf^Photoman 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - are you changing to Keep then? --Dweller 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

naturally not I am adhering to : This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. I really tried to find references about this guy, to the point that I Skyped a friend of mine who works in a newspaper in Oslo. He came up with one article mentioning this guy in passing as part of the report of the swearing in ceremony. After that zilch, nada ... not even that he inaugurated a public pissoir. Alf^Photoman 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I not sure how you, or your friend, looked for references but to help here is the first few results found by Google [1], [2] and [3]. My Bokmål isn't up to much but I'm sure your friend could get some detail from them to add to the archives his paper can access that aren't online. Nuttah68 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those, and basically they confirm that Bryggesaa was part of a government as member of the liberal party. That is beyond discussion and that is basically what this article says. My point is that there is nothing more. If you want to say he is automatically notable, well fine with me but I beg to differ Alf^Photoman 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, fallacious nomination, government ministers are notable. Punkmorten 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Punkmorten. The Rambling Man 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Nuttah68. Being a stub is not the same as CSD.A1 (and should never be treated as such). CSD.A1, "very short articles providing little or no context" is for cases where we can't even make out who the person is and/or what s/he did. This is a valid stub article deserving of expansion. -- Black Falcon 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Any minister in a national government is notable. I'm guessing that there just isn't a lot in English, and especially online, for this notable historical individual. This does not mean he's not notable. --Charlene 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I do not know anything of him, but even minor politicians at national level can be notable. What does the Norwegian Wiki say about him? Peterkingiron 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't make the Bokmål 'pedia say anything about him (a search yields a collection of what I take to be "List of Parliamentarians" or "List of Cabinet Ministers" or something like that). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 5 March 2007 (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.