Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig Fiske

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. Kimchi.sg 15:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solveig Fiske

Solveig Fiske (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The creator of this article removed the speedy tag inserted as an A7 CSD. The creator then reported the tagging Editor in AN/I for vandalism Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mindless_deletionism. In order to take the heat out of the discussion I am listing this as AFD as restoring the speedy tag will undoubtedly create more debate then is necessary. Effectively an administrative listing but I'm not entirely sure that every Bishop in the world is notable. Spartaz 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC) I think we have a consensus now. If someone could come along and close this we can all move on with our lives. --Spartaz 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am obviously satisfied with the general consensus, my general position is that AFDs should remain open for the standard period of time. For one thing, the editor who nominated the article for speedy deletion hasn't had a chance to vote yet. --Leifern 15:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - in the case of questionable articles that could go either way, I lean on the side of "does someone care enough to write an article" side. There's no point in keeping a stub for three years that nobody is ever going to touch, but if someone is willing to write an article on it ... this person seems to be a significant individual in the national church of Norway, so keep. BigDT 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep After all she is a bishop. And she passes WP:BIO; there are articles about her in important newspapers in Norway: like this one. TSO1D 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- the standard in WP:BIO is "multiple non-trivial published works". A quick google throws up what are obviously multiple reports of her appointment as bishop. (The fact that I can't read Norwegian is irrelevant.) Bucketsofg 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and please, deletionists, think before you nominate. --Leifern 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There's only a cabal if you want there to be one. --Dennisthe2 00:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Leifern, I get frustrated at deletionists, especially when deletion is a first resort (vs. tagging for cleanup or sources, or even googling first). But labeling a speedy tag as vandalism just makes you look silly. --Dhartung | Talk 01:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Cool it Leifern. Your assumption of bad faith on the part of other editors and calling the speedy tag, errantly applied or not, and this AfD as vandalism doesn't reflect well at all. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm a deletionist (who always thinks and looks for references before nominating, thank you very much) and I argued againstthe speedy delete tagging. I hope User:Leifern can recognize that the accusations of vandalism and cabals are unnecessary, and that there are processes that Leifern should follow in future if faced with this kind of situation again. And please, no votestacking. Bwithh 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add referencing articles for notability. Seems to pass WP:BIO. --Dennisthe2 00:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep To foil the delitionist cabal... and because she passes WP:N.Sethie 01:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Sigh. WP:TINC. Bwithh 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment seems to be a slight bit of campaigning going on here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norway#Bishops_in_the_Church_of_Norway. Metros232 01:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a strong hint when there is an article in the local language. --Dhartung | Talk 01:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to meet WP:BIO as public religious figure. As an aside, to label an admitted overzealous use of WP:CSD as "vandalism" is taking it too far and tramples all over WP:AGF. An appropriate action would have been to play within the rules and use {{hangon}}, and an administrator would have let the article stay and, at the worst, brought it here anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I am happy to discuss my characterization of the speedy delete nomination as "vandalism," but I have deliberately not brought that into the discussion here, partly as conciliatory move, and partly to keep the vote clean. I will write a brief explanation at User talk:Leifern, and we can take it from there. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, but it seems that making one accusation to counter another does little to get me - or anyone else - out of the trenches. --Leifern 02:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Judging by searches, appears to be known only in Norway. Also, appointment as Bishop doesn't seem to me to give sufficient notability--she is the Bishop of a town of 27,000. IMO, this can be covered sufficiently in other Wikipedias. The other Wikipedia article doesn't seem to cite much in the way of references either. This page is extremely light on the "multiple, non-trivial independent published works" as well. --Jackhorkheimer 02:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• The diocese of Hamar is one of 11 dioceses of the Church of Norway and covers one of the most populous areas of the country - far more than the 27,000 who live in the seat of the diocese, namely Hamar. And by your standard of "only being known in Norway," should we delete articles about people who are only known in the United Kingdom, Canada, or the U.S.? --Leifern 03:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; episcopal-level dignitaries of a major church are notable pretty much by definition, in my opinion, in the same way that dukes and princes and senators are notable. Kirill Lokshin 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because it seems to be notable. But it would be good if some secondary references are provided, apart from the external links. Jyothisingh 03:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep In my opinion people holding highly-placed religious offices are automatically notable, in addition, there appear to be ample sources. The article may not be ideal, but it is acceptable under all wikipedia policy I can think of. As to the greater debate, I'm staying out of it, but I will say that I can see points on both sides. Assuming good faith is vital, but using a speedy tag when an article does not meet speedy criteria is also stepping out of process. In my opinion, this AfD should avoid that issue. Wintermut3 04:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and put Stub mark Notable enough, passes WP:BIO, and it's about a bishop. GCFreak2 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, bishopcruft Keep. Philwelch 07:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient ex offico notability as a bishop of a national church. Bwithh 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Bishops are notable. And speedy-tagging an article with such a clear claim to notability (and doing it without an edit summary) may not be vandalism, but it is not correct use of the deletion instruments we have around here. up◦land 08:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO criteria, she is a bishop of a major church of Norway, there are a number of reliable sources on Google. If we have articles on little kids (not royals) on the line of succession to the British throne, this subject also has (in fact) more notability than those kids. Terence Ong 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, bishopcruft. Hehe. But seriously, multiple non-trivial works. Punkmorten 11:23, 26 December 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.