Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kirkegaard (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sandstein 08:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kirkegaard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Recently recreated after an AFD in 2018. I don't see any good substantial coverage of him in the sources, which largely pre-date the last AFD. Notorious in certain Wikipedia-related circles, but apparently not WP:GNG notable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of substantial (significant in size, value, or importance) coverage of him in the sources. Your statement is factually incorrect, objectively. The sources provided and the number of them more than justify the existence of the article. As he (Kirkegaard) is a well known public figure who is constantly the source of various kinds of media attention etc., the existence of the article is useful and important for the many people who may be searching for him at any given time. Thus it serves a good purpose and should stay up. If the countless number of lesser/=/> known public/historical figures (random ex. 1, 2) (some way more controversial (NSDAP, etc.), who have pages with far less sources, some w/ less substantiality in totality) are left alone and are considered justified/fine (by virtue of being up/still existing), then one can only conclude that the nomination for deletion is a purely political move, which goes directly against what this website is supposed to be about (knowledge). As the article (Kirkegaard) is about a notable/notorious public figure, and as the article is well sourced (>30 to date, including sources such as Forbes), deletion is not even suggested in this instance according to this website's own guidelines. To say it is not GNG notable is an apparently very blatant lie (let's compare it to your article about an obscure chef no one (outside SF) has ever heard of; sources: 3 SF newspaper articles and a Tweet, plus a Jezebel article -- far less net substantiality than countless other low sourced articles + mostly low quality resources). Until concerted efforts are made by the community to accept and build the article, nominations for deletion of Kirkegaard articles will be nothing more than brazen and hypocritical political moves (IMO). --Lute Currie (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contrary to Lute Currie's assertion, there are fewer than 90 possible sources out there, and almost nothing in the way of reliable secondary sources (WP:RS) providing substantial discussion of the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was created by an improper copy/paste move. I will perform a history-merge in the next few minutes, which includes a temporary deletion of the article before I'll restore it, so don't worry if for (hopefully) a brief period you'll see the article redlinked. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Done, let me know if there's a problem. --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a not a well known public figure and the current article looks like a biased article written in favour of the individual (it is problematic because the article lacks reliable sourcing). Not much can be gathered about Kirkegaard as an individual or his life there are a few passing mentions of controversies he has been involved in written from a biased viewpoint. From what can be gathered on the web, Kirkegaard is a racial fringe theorist but there is not much in depth coverage about him just his controversial views on blogs. There was a previous afd plagued by sock-puppets and the vote was to delete. Emil Kirkegaard is indef blocked on Wikipedia I noticed [1] but is desperate to get onto this website for Google clicks. I find it suspicious Lute Currie is a brand new account creating his Wikipedia article. A few months ago another brand new account created this same page [2]. There is something going on here. Meat-puppetry perhaps? The political comment from Lute Currie says it all really "Until concerted efforts are made by the community to accept and build the article, nominations for deletion of Kirkegaard articles will be nothing more than brazen and hypocritical political moves". I am unconvinced these repeated article creations are being done in good faith. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an ongoing effort to insert mentions of Emil Kirkegaard into other articles as well. See e.g. [3], [4]. Looks like this will need to be watched carefully. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenPsych Emil Kirkegaard is not separately notable from OpenPsych which most of the news coverage relating to Kirkegaard has revolved around. The redirect should be made indefintely extended confirmed protected in order to avoid repeat recreation, Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that he has received an (unflattering) profile in 2017 from Le Temps, a well regarded Swiss newspaper, but that's the only significant indepth coverage of Kiregaard as an individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some very iffy sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Known among a subset of the WP community for POV-pushing on and off Wiki but not at all notable to the world at large. Generalrelative (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and possibly redirect to OpenPsych (that would satisfy "people who may be searching for him at any given time"). The mentioned Forbes article for instance is a contributor's and is really about an event (WP:1EVENT), it's similar with the Wired article. Most other sources are also about topics like eugenism, conference controversies and OpenPsych, more than about the person. —Paleo Neonate – 20:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OpenPsych I searched for Emil Kirkegaard on Google and Bing and looked for news sites that I was familiar with and which are, as far as I know, decent sources of information. I wasn't looking for any particular information, I just wanted a general idea of what the media thinks is important about him. I found articles at Vox, Vice, Forbes, Christian Science Monitor, and Global News. All of them are about the OkCupid incident. None of them talk about Kirkegaard himself in any detail. Maybe there are non-English or specialized sources that have more info about him but as far as general purpose English news sources go the Okcupid incident seems to be the only thing about him that's attracted much attention, and it's already described at the OpenPsych article. Squeakachu (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to OpenPsych - (edit conflict) Kirkegaard is part of a prolific fringe group, so a superficial search or glance at Google hit counts may give false results. Sources which appear superficially reliable should be scrutinized very carefully. This group has issues with WP:Walled gardens, WP:POVFORKs, etc. It's not enough to count sources and then !vote, we need to make sure these sources are reliable in context. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not wiki-notable independently of OpenPsych, since that article also covers the OKCupid incident. A redirect could be created after deletion, but the page history doesn't need preservation. XOR'easter (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to OpenPsych. I mentioned this on the draft talk page but this article has almost complete overlap with that one.Citing (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lute Currie has now ported the Emil Kirkegaard article to the German Wikipedia [5] and a few days ago the Spanish Wikipedia (but that one was deleted [6]). Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might well be a case of meat-puppetry (WP:MEAT). Lute Currie [7] is now uploading photographs of Emil Kirkegaard as "his own work". So he presumably took it. There is a possible conflict of interest (WP:COI) issue here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the different photos uploaded by Currie, they clearly are not "own work", but copied from elsewhere. It's a common mistake made by many new users that copying or scanning somebody else's images constitutes "old work". I have tagged several of their photos as copyvios and others for missing source info. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user's first uploaded image is a cryptocurrency-related Pepe meme that's circulated on 4chan and twitter since at least February. Trolling seems very likely here. Grayfell (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lute Currie has written a published article on the Occidental Observer website which is a well known white supremacist website. Anyone can sign up here and create articles as long as they meet criteria so I couldn't care less what his views are but this users editing appears to be political motivated [8] as his recent talk-page comment reveals so that is a potential conflict of interest and problem. I think this should be a speedy delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: Agreed. I'm getting some serious WP:NOTHERE vibes from their replies to you on their talk page, including this bit that they thought better of and cut: [9]. Their other article creations (Lorenz Mack, Carl Julius Haidvogel, and Eduard Ritter von Josch) should also be examined for notability as well. The first of these in particular seems pretty weak on sources. Generalrelative (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Your information: Speed deletion (SLA) as a result of regular deletion discussion in the German Wikipedia. Regards RAL1028 (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to note that the sourcing could be better: I happen to know for a fact that there are reliable sources covering his... more interesting aspects. But the last time I posted those caused a bit of a ruckus, so I'll leave that to others to post. They weren't that hard to find, though hard enough that it brings up serious questions of notability.

Actually, strike that. I see that some of the sources used in the article are those same sources I mentioned. I wonder why the article doesn't cover those parts? Why is information determined to be relevant and included in RSes specifically to help characterize Kirkegaard being excluded from an encyclopedia page about it? I really would like to see an admin look into this question.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

21:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF and there is little biographical substance in the article: he released some data that he scraped from the web, he founded a journal and he participated in a conference. I dont see enough for WP:THREE. --hroest 00:46, 26 May 2021 (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.