Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Povl Riis-Knudsen
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 was no consensus. Yannismarou 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Povl Riis-Knudsen
Non-notable Danish neo-nazi. The only source given is not from a reliable source and the link doesn't work anymore. So, delete per WP:BIO MartinDK 10:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Lack of reliable sources, failure to prove notability. --Folantin 11:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Important figure in international Neo-Nazism as both a theorist and a former leader of the World Union of National Socialists. Keresaspa 11:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is nothing important about his "theoretical" work. None of it is new. As for his leadership of the World Union of National Socialists there is absolutely nothing notable about it. It didn't last long and he accomplished nothing. This explains the complete lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. MartinDK 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of sources is not a good enough reason for deletion as these can always be added. I'm too busy to do it now but will be able to next month so the article could easily be tagged as lacking sources rather than deleted. I disagree with your other statements as his theoretical work and leadership had a very divisive impact on international Neo-Nazism, effectively wrecking their attempts at unity along with Matt Koehl. Keresaspa 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually lack of sources happens to be an excellent reason for deletion. WP:V is policy and should be enforced. Since you wrote the article you must know your sources. Remember that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Also, where are the reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage? The article has been here for two years yet not a single reliable source has been added. MartinDK 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- He is covered in The Beast Reawakens and some other works on the far right to which I have access. The lack of sources is something I can fix, just not right now as I have too much work on. Keresaspa 12:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually lack of sources happens to be an excellent reason for deletion. WP:V is policy and should be enforced. Since you wrote the article you must know your sources. Remember that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Also, where are the reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage? The article has been here for two years yet not a single reliable source has been added. MartinDK 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Lack of sources is not a good enough reason for deletion as these can always be added. I'm too busy to do it now but will be able to next month so the article could easily be tagged as lacking sources rather than deleted. I disagree with your other statements as his theoretical work and leadership had a very divisive impact on international Neo-Nazism, effectively wrecking their attempts at unity along with Matt Koehl. Keresaspa 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is nothing important about his "theoretical" work. None of it is new. As for his leadership of the World Union of National Socialists there is absolutely nothing notable about it. It didn't last long and he accomplished nothing. This explains the complete lack of coverage by independent reliable sources. MartinDK 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I presume Povl Riis-Knudsen has come to notice because of the deletion discussion on his essay, National Socialism: A Left Wing Movement, which I believe should be deleted since the article basically consists of little more than a copy of the essay itself. However, the article on the man needs to stay for the reasons given by Keresaspa, i.e. he is (was) a significant figure in the international Nazi movement and a leading theorist. OK, so it needs more sources. Let's give Keresaspa some good faith and trust him to add them. Emeraude 12:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: With only 62 G-hits [1] and less than a third of that on the Danish Google, almost every single one of those from Wiki mirrors or from hate sites like stormfront.org, the degree to which this fellow is a "significant figure" anywhere is wholly unproven, and every indication is that he's just another fringe crackpot. Keresaspa created this article nearly two years ago and has had ample time to bring it to proper standards of verifiability. There should be no prejudice about the recreation of a properly sourced article on this subject, but we can't keep unsourced articles for years on the premise that reliable sources no one else can find will show up. RGTraynor 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources since 2005 - WP:V, WP:BIO apply. Also, no indication that this guy was ever the "leader" of more than a dozen or so beer-guzzling nutjobs. Sandstein 20:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Never heard of 'em. GoodDay 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have now added references from a few sources. I will do this more thoroughly in about a month but at the minute I am writing up my PhD thesis and don't have time to spend on this. I appreciate the lack of references was one of the big problems but hopefully that side of the argument can now be put to bed. The only problem that I can see remaining is notably and I feel that his positions with the WUNS and DNBS, his writing and publishing activities and the controversy he has raised are enough to make him notable. Some may disagree but such is life and it will be the call of whoever closes this debate to judge that one. Keresaspa 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as written, the sources seem quite sufficient for notability. DGG (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I assume that you are aware that forums don't make reliable sources. To establish notability the source must also show non-trivial coverage, something that the remaining sources fail to do. As for WUNS and DNBS those are small and only borderline notable organizations. Why do you think those 62 Google hits are all due to this article? The guy is a local nutcase, nothing more than that. Please, read the sources and then read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:V / WP:RS. He had 2 years to source this and this is not the only unsourced article he has created. The onus is on the creator to source the article. I'll remove the links that violate WP:EL shortly. MartinDK 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I'm copping so much flack here but I would ask you to remember WP:CIVIL. My other contributions are not the object of this discussion. As for this one, 'local nutcase' is your opinion and I've already outlined why I disagree with that. Given that Wikipedia doesn't exist just to serve either of us there is little we can do to change each others opinion on that. I also don't see the problems with Lee's book or a European Parliament report as sources, whilst quoting someone's own words to indicate their beliefs also seems fine to me. Keresaspa 12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- The EU report is available here. Please, to establish notability you need multiple reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage. The EU report is trivial coverage (one mention of his name), the forum only contains his essay which is not sufficient at all for establishing notability. In addition to this we shouldn't be linking to forums in the first place per WP:EL. This basically leaves the book by Lee as the only reliable source showing non-trivial coverage. One book is not multiple reliable sources. Please understand that my only concern here is that WP:N is not satisfied. If you can provide multiple reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage then of course we can keep the article. Until then we have policies and guidelines that we need to follow. Once again, please read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Those are all clear on what makes reliable sources and how notability is established. It really shouldn't be that difficult. Add to this that the article had been unsourced for 2 years before I nominated it and you have a text book example of a deletion candidate. And I haven't even mentioned WP:BLP which also applies and demands that you source it properly. MartinDK 08:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why I'm copping so much flack here but I would ask you to remember WP:CIVIL. My other contributions are not the object of this discussion. As for this one, 'local nutcase' is your opinion and I've already outlined why I disagree with that. Given that Wikipedia doesn't exist just to serve either of us there is little we can do to change each others opinion on that. I also don't see the problems with Lee's book or a European Parliament report as sources, whilst quoting someone's own words to indicate their beliefs also seems fine to me. Keresaspa 12:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I assume that you are aware that forums don't make reliable sources. To establish notability the source must also show non-trivial coverage, something that the remaining sources fail to do. As for WUNS and DNBS those are small and only borderline notable organizations. Why do you think those 62 Google hits are all due to this article? The guy is a local nutcase, nothing more than that. Please, read the sources and then read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided and WP:V / WP:RS. He had 2 years to source this and this is not the only unsourced article he has created. The onus is on the creator to source the article. I'll remove the links that violate WP:EL shortly. MartinDK 07:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Even though GoodDay never heard of him and MartinDK thinks he's just a local nutcase, the sources do show sufficient notability. And that's what counts.--Carabinieri 01:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think this article could work, but it requires extensive improvements. J-stan Talk 01:47, 31 July 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.
