Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian Defence League

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Defence League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not meet wp:gng. In all the references it is only mentioned once or twice, usually in the context of being a sub-group of English Defence League. Hence it should most likely be merged with the English Defence League aticle. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator's rationale is incorrect, simply. There is ample discussion of the organization in the sources, which are ALL reliable sources. I find this nomination frivolous. __meco (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources such as [1] and [2] (both in the article already) are enough to establish notability separate from either the EDL or Breivik.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not knowing Norwegian I feel a little bit handicapped, but it appears that adequate sourcing exists. Such political organizations SHOULD be the subject of encyclopedic coverage regardless of what one thinks about their motivating ideology. Seems to be written in accord with NPOV, which bears constant watching. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as it is the subject of significant media coverage (also way beyond what is referenced in the article). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Meco. Estlandia (dialogue) 11:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge of all WP:BLP violations and misuse of sources - a lot of charhes are made with grossly insufficient RS sourcing at all Collect (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources to create an article. Only made scant news coverage in Norway because Breivik suggested setting it up and may have been a member. Ironically Collect and others want to minimize the little information that is available due to BLP issues. Otherwise the main source of information is the group's own website. Suggest merging into EDL and saying that a group based on them exists in Norway. At some point the group may become notable or will fizzle, but it is too early to tell. TFD (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Any reason for the ad hom inserted into this discussion? WP:BLP happens to be a major Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People sometimes label any mention of a fellow editor in connection with criticism of edits or positions as ad hominem attacks. I believe that is inappropriate. I think we should not be that touchy. That's my opinion. __meco (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take the existing sources, remove your BLP violations and statements sourced to the NDL and there is no article. TFD (talk) 07:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is an absolute policy - if one wishes to keep BLP violations in any article, one is running contrary to stated policy. I made no comments which could be as totally misconstrued as your apparent post seeks to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.