Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Johannes Helleland hacking incident

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

Article about a local Sex Scandal, based on an article from a tabloid NEWSPAPER. The local politican is a city councilman, not otherwise notable WP:GNG and is charged, but not convicted yet WP:PERPETRATOR. This is for the tabloids, not for an encyclopedia. Ben Ben (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article includes sources such as a full article from the Wall Street Journal about the subject, and repeated coverage from NRK, Norway's equivalent of the BBC. Such extensive and international sourcing demonstrates sufficient coverage for an article, and demonstrates that the interest of sources in this incident is not local or fleeting. The full article in the WSJ, especially, indicates that this incident has attracted significant attention internationally from reliable and independent sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did you consider this article is about an event in the Silly season? WP:SENSATION or in general WP:NEWSEVENT describes this effect. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered that, and I'm not an inclusionist by any means. But for city-level politics to attract international attention from major publications, that's pretty unusual. If this just had a few local papers as sources, I'd be arguing to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that unusual. --Ben Ben (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Plus it appears from the article on WSJ that the story there is because of him being the son of a prominent politician. Notability is not inherited. Caffeyw (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NEVENTS. Non-notable politician being a pervert? Doesn't seem likely to have any lasting significance. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Kebabpizza (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sourcing from both national and international press. indicating notability beyond a national story. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Question, since we cant view the WSJ article without some kind of account, can someone look to see if this is investigative in nature or if it is just menial coverage of what was reported by the other news outlets. Just bcause a notable outlet covers the issue doesnt make the issue notable. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I neither have access but the wording in the WSJ article ... according to Norwegian newspaper VG ... let me think the story was covered. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't put a whole lot of weight to the international coverage which is one article, but there was substantial coverage in Norwegian media which generated for a little time a wider debate about privacy on internet etc. It died down relatively quickly however, so it is not really persistent and having long-time impact. I see in a newspaper article now, that he will get a so-called "confession sentence" that will be either a fine or prison up to 6 months. So legally, this isn't all that much, and as a "confession sentence" there won't be an ordinary trial with witnesses etc. The guy has reportedly been sick after the story broke , and I think that per BLP guidelines about not harming an individual unnecessary we should be conservative and delete this article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negative BLP1E even if named after the event. Martinp (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2013 (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.