Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was speedy delete, previously deleted material Joelito (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen

I thought that this is a case that is interesting, that it might be worthy of creating a separate page demonstrating how to create circular notability by use of wiki. Maybe there is already such a page on wiki? Initially I just thought simply to put it up for speed deletion, but as I thought about it, this may actually be worth using as a demonstration of how quickly wiki can create circular notability.

Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen was deleted on Marts 19, 2005 as vanity; see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen. The same article was recreated as Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen on Marts 25, 2005. For a little over a year few has paid attention to the article, so it has just quietly been living on wiki for over a year. However you go to google today and search for “Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen” you get around 400 hits. Upon examining these hits you quickly realize that 95-99% of all these links take their information from this wiki page or the 1979 page that has a link and a little text on it.

For the un-observing reading “Bjørn-Arild Berthelsen” now appear to, at least to a little degree, to be a notably person, as there surely are google links for him. But these google links exists only because he has been living on wiki for a year now, e.g. circular notability.

Is that not really an interesting phenomenon to document? As said maybe there is already such a page on wiki?

Anyway delete as per decision established in previous article name “Bjorn-Arild Berthelsen” Twthmoses 10:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete You're right, if I saw this now without the above info, I'd have thought that being around that long, it must have been notable. I guess some things just fall through the cracks though - if this page was made now, it'd be marked with {db-band} for sure. Other than an interesting phenominon, like you say, I don't see any reason to keep it though. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and I agree completly on the circular notability part, It's always been my biggest fear with wikipedia that one day it stops documenting facts and start making them. We must all be ever vigilant with cases like this simply for the way so many people turn to us for facts first and the way everything gets copied accross the globe from us so quickly and easily Ydam 10:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
oh and don't forget the link in the 1979 list Ydam 10:53, 2 June 2006 (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.