Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henrik Johan Bull
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Henrik Johan Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable, one event and a contested event at that. Should be merged into article about Antarctica exploration. No reason for this to have a tiny stub of its own. Age Happens (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give a specific target article for a merge? Nosleep break my slumber 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. I think the History of Antarctica article would be the best place, in the section "Exploration" as it seems he isn't even mentioned there! He is already mentioned in the List of Antarctic expeditions article, 19th century. Looking at the List of expeditions article, I suspect that many of them might need to be merged in a similar way to the Temba Tsheri proposed deletion, if that is the consensus there. Age Happens (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. I think the History of Antarctica article would be the best place, in the section "Exploration" as it seems he isn't even mentioned there! He is already mentioned in the List of Antarctic expeditions article, 19th century. Looking at the List of expeditions article, I suspect that many of them might need to be merged in a similar way to the Temba Tsheri proposed deletion, if that is the consensus there. Age Happens (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the article to a more correct title and corrected the page name above. --Hegvald (talk) 10:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He is included in Norsk biografisk leksikon, both the current edition (freely available on-line and already linked from the page) and a previous edition (see references there). --Hegvald (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An entry in a print encyclopedia is the best evidence possible that we should have an entry in Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is important to remember that WP:ONEEVENT applies whether a person has a mention in some other encyclopedia or not. Other sources may not have our guidelines, and our guidelines include WP:ONEEVENT. The person wasn't even notable enough to include in the History of Antarctica section on Exploration, and even the first person status is in doubt, as indicated in the article itself. As noted elsewhere by Nosleep, the point of the WP:BIO1E standard is to make the aerticle about the event not the person, except in extraordinary circumstances. This person's notability is dependent solely upon that one event, for which an article already exists which should include him, and that event is hardly extraordinary enough to justify a separate article. Age Happens (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If topics covered in major printed reference works of the traditional type that were edited by experts and had to pay for authors & paper (that includes the current NBL, which was printed before it went online) could not be covered in Wikipedia because of some guideline, then that guideline would (in my view) be detrimental and should be ignored. In this case, however, it is clear that you are just over-interpreting the guideline. Did you even notice that your link went to a page concerned with "biographies of living persons"? --Hegvald (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a closer look at WP:BIO1E and compare it with WP:BLP1E. The general content of both is identical, and they are generally used interchangeably. I used WP:ONEEVENT in my comment because that was the link used by Nosleep. I usually use WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, and do so with the former for deceased people and the latter for living people. Forgive me for keeping to the usage of previous editor's comments as a way of avoiding confusion by people who don't bother to closely read the WP links. As to the other part of your comment, what other publications and outside sources use as standards is not the measure of what Wikipedia uses as standards. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear and in this case entirely unambiguous. Bull is known for one and only one event. And even that event is itself disputed. The event is so non-notable that he was even left off the Exploration section of the main article for Antarctic history. To quote the Wikipedia guideline in WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."" The event was a minor onr in the exploration of Antarctica. There is an existing article for that. Therefore, there is no need for a separate article about the person or persons involved. Age Happens (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you may take a look at what that page calls the "basic criteria", where the first sentence says that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." In other words, "what other publications and outside sources use as standards" is exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to rely on. --Hegvald (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a closer look at WP:BIO1E and compare it with WP:BLP1E. The general content of both is identical, and they are generally used interchangeably. I used WP:ONEEVENT in my comment because that was the link used by Nosleep. I usually use WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, and do so with the former for deceased people and the latter for living people. Forgive me for keeping to the usage of previous editor's comments as a way of avoiding confusion by people who don't bother to closely read the WP links. As to the other part of your comment, what other publications and outside sources use as standards is not the measure of what Wikipedia uses as standards. The Wikipedia guidelines are clear and in this case entirely unambiguous. Bull is known for one and only one event. And even that event is itself disputed. The event is so non-notable that he was even left off the Exploration section of the main article for Antarctic history. To quote the Wikipedia guideline in WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person."" The event was a minor onr in the exploration of Antarctica. There is an existing article for that. Therefore, there is no need for a separate article about the person or persons involved. Age Happens (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If topics covered in major printed reference works of the traditional type that were edited by experts and had to pay for authors & paper (that includes the current NBL, which was printed before it went online) could not be covered in Wikipedia because of some guideline, then that guideline would (in my view) be detrimental and should be ignored. In this case, however, it is clear that you are just over-interpreting the guideline. Did you even notice that your link went to a page concerned with "biographies of living persons"? --Hegvald (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2009 (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.