Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bjørn Sagvolden

Bjørn Sagvolden

Bjørn Sagvolden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not notable; soapbox. Recently deleted from the Norwegian Wikipedia. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. --Kjetil r (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as quoted. Beware of redirects. --Orland (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep . Excellent sources. They check out. And the subject of article, is most definetly notable. Norway wiki-censorship (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: This is the first edit by Norway wiki-censorship (talk · contribs). --Kjetil r (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. --KEN (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: If this article is deleted, the closing admin should remove the section Forsvarets_Spesialkommando_(FSK)#FSK-special_forces_soldiers as well. --Kjetil r (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Question: The sentence: "In 1982 he was one of the pioneers during the establishment of the special forces of the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK) He performed FSK's first official military dive with oxygen in 1983, off the coast of Horten" seems to imply notability. Can someone explain why it should still be deleted, and why it was deleted from the Norwegian WP to begin with? (I'm not going to follow their lead blindly if I don't know why they did it). - Mgm|^(talk) 19:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  That the accident took place during an «first official» event seems to be one journalist's idea[1] – if anything, the impression I get from other sources is that this was a «secret» event, and a routine event at that – it seems he had made similar dives "7–8 times privately in the 1½ years past, aside from several dives on duty".[2]

  Moreover, it presents only Sagvoldens side of the story – deviating far from the view presented even in the referenced sources, the first of which opens the lead with telling us the Sagvolden is charged with 40 crimes ("I alt er Ellingsrud-mannen Bjørn Sagvolden tiltalt for 40 forhold") and opens the main text by telling us that neighbors, parking valets, ex-neighbors, and ex-bosses are accusing him of among other things threats of violence, unprovoked violence, harrassment(?), and violation of privacy ("Naboer, parkeringsvakter, tidligere naboer og tidligere overordnede har anmeldt ham for blant annet voldstrusler, umotivert vold, sjikane og krenking av privatlivets fred").

  And what it does tell us of his current case – with a single, fairly short newspaper article as the only "source" – is similarly one-sided. The testimony in court that supports his view is referenced, while the testimony that doesn't, is not.

  I'm not sure under what soapbox heading I should put it – propaganda? a thinly veiled opinion piece? scandal mongering or gossip? certainly the original author (who is not the user who translated it to English) has a strong personal involvement – just check the talk page – but what makes it a soapbox article in my view, is the lopsided presentation, where Sagvolden is presented as a pioneer, a victim, and an accuser, while ignoring what others think or say of him, except to the extent that it fits with his own ideas. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reply : Mister Sagvolden has 40 "anmeldelser". However, where/what are the charges, that possibly made it, to court ? When 40 crimes are reported by police, generally, then 40 ( or less, or none ) will actually make it to court. Were any "anmeldelser " for speeding etc. ? If he was convicted for 1 or 40 "counts" in a court of law, then what were the counts ?
• And if he was concicted on 1 or 40 counts, eventually which 1 ( or 40 ) were wiki-relevant.

( Also, it is my right to make frivolous crime report, one time every day for 40 days, concerning wiki-user the Sidhekin. However, a person making frivolous crime-reports, are subject to punishment, if the frivolous crime reports are false. You have the right, to be dishonest. However, the judiciaries regulate, that such actions are punishable, by law. )

• Furthermore, I claim that Mister "the Sidhekin " is "soapbox"-ing on this arena ! ( Similar to a claim, that he has made about me. For the rest of the discussion, may we please not attach labels, to our opponents, in this debate ? Let us simply stick to argument, about what is true, and what is not true.

What is documented well, and what possibly is not documented well. Sju hav (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment : I disagree with the comment from " --Kjetil r " . The Forsvarets Spesialkommando-article, has nothing to do with this discussion. Sju hav (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Propaganda in connection with the ongoing lawsuit. 3s (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)