Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik

Anders Behring Breivik

No to deletion. As listening to public opinion is important to prevent extremists and evil governments taking hold. Whether the discussion is generated by evil people or not, they cannot be simply ignored, even at the cost of letting them become famous.

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

Loaded with hearsay and speculation. Classic WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outright deletion is not warranted, the incident and person are clearly very notable. But merge for now to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator. Per WP:BLP1E we do not have separate articles for people who are notable for one thing only (in this case, the attacks), unless they attract persistent coverage in reliable sources. This man will probably qualify for a separate article if and when he goes to trial, if not before, but right now it's too early to tell. As a practical matter, the information at 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator is now essentially a duplicate of Anders Behring Breivik, and it is impractical to keep both versions up-to-date and error-free. That's why I propose to merge the content back for now and spin it out again as soon as it becomes too large, per WP:SS. (Others have pointed out, though, that a previous merger proposal did not obtain consensus). Sandstein 12:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event is notable but the person is not (yet). Only suspected, not actually convicted of any crime. ShipFan (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because is a notabily article. Vitor Mazuco ^Talk! 12:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. --Sloane (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stupid nomination, the subject is a suspect in a major event, of course he is notable. WWGB (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. Being merely suspected of a crime is not sufficient criteria for inclusion. ShipFan (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very unreasonable nom due to this persons immediate notability. SOXROX (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. Tidy up and discuss a merger in 2-3 weeks – then, we'll have more facts anyway, and with some days hindsight, we'll know what's important enough for all the Oslo/Utøya/Breivik-related articles. Min dypeste medfølelse. --Keimzelle (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is the prime and so far only suspect in the biggest (terrorist?) attack on European soil in decades. That fact alone makes him notable. Polozooza (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Defer any decision The actual situation should be clearer within a short time. ike9898 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear precedent for keeping articles on mass murderers. Seung-Hui Cho, Timothy McVeigh, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, etc. The very presence of this AFD nomination on a widely read article is putting Wikipedia in a bad light, and a speedy keep should therefore be considered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ridiculous nomination considering that the user did not even bother to read the article's talk page. Pre-existing consensus is leaning on wait for now. --hydrox (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]