Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Bäckman (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 keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Bäckman

The page was already deleted per AfD. Now it is recreated ~~by editors who voted delete on the previous aFD~~. I have restored the previous versions so to check if it changed significantly since the deletion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep the article and merge it with the deleted version. At least the deleted version is referenced. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the arguments presented in the previous AFD. Nothing significant has happened that would increase Bäckman's personal notability in comparison to last autumn. Bäckman's news coverage is purely in context of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee of which he is a member, but the membership does not convey encyclopædic notability to himelf.

Even Safka's notability is disputed, as it turns out. Its article in Finnish Wikipedia is currently on deletion discussion, with currently 48 votes for delete and 15 votes for keep. No wonder -- in its largest public demonstration only 14 people showed up, and that includes the committee's own members. The Committee's news coverage has been, shall we say, disproportionate for their actual presence and influence. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted from Finnish Wikipedia, with 78.8% of votes supporting deletion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the deleted version, he's an adjunct professor at two Finnish universities? He's also published numerous publications? And given citations in scholar in regards to Estonian/Finnish/Russian history, he is certainly notable. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not reason to delete. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple people named "Johan Bäckman". Just at a glance, it is obvious that the first three results in your search are by Johan Bäckman of Lund University, who looks nothing like the Johan Bäckman pictured in this article. As for scholarly citations, the University of Helsinki has had to issue a statement asserting that Bäckman's opinions about history or politics are not endorsed by the University -- they're Bäckman's personal opinions. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that often occurs when people get a bug up their butt about views they don't like; they whine to the university; often they will call for the uni to cut ties with the person; the uni refuses and says that they are his views and not of the uni....it's standard university PR, and you'd probably find that most universities operate in such a way anyway. Of course, the fact that the Uni of Hel has issued such a statement, is only lending him more notability, is it not? About the scholars, there are obviously some about birds and stufff, but I did clearly say above in regards to Estonian/Finnish/Russian history; there are cites for his papers, so he is looking more and more notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reputable university has trouble standing behind good scholarship. And no reputable university likes the stain of bad scholarship. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first version was created – and deleted – prematurely. At the time he was most notable for the advance publicity and hype generated by his upcoming book on the Bronze Soldier. (The article was deleted on September 15, the book only came out September 22.) Sense then he has gained international notability by this controversal book and, lately, as a spokesman for the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee. He has regulary appeared in the news on Russian national television, as well as all forms of Finnish and Estonian media. There is however a language bias here, in the English language media he is most notable for the book review by Edward Lucas. Notability ultimately derives from the fact the by attacking Estonian history he is attacking the basis of Estonian statehood. In Estonia, control of history is a question of national security. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there could be a COI issue here, Petri Krohn may be associated with Johan Bäckman. Martintg (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep So lon as references can be provided demonstrating coverage in mainstream news then possibly this will meet notability guidelines. But having published papers does not mean he is notable.Bildstit (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The above user was recently indef-blocked for likely sockpuppet activity. Them From Space 22:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He hasn't been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. His notability is based upon WP:SINGLEEVENT, being the controversy surrounding the Bronze soldier. I could self publish some books, create an Australian anti-fascist committee with two of my buddies and organise a protest or two with a dozen other buddies attacking the basis of New Zealand's statehood, but it wouldn't make me any more notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books appear notable--and he would be also. Notable in Estonia or Finland is quite enough for notability. The English WP covers the world, as long as people will write the articles in English. DGG (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that there would be a single place where one could elaborate on the flaws in his writings. Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I find it worrying that the nominator repeatedly fails to discriminate between different editors here and here and elsewhere. Didn't we have enough of this two years ago? The previous AfD has nothing to do with Digwuren, Sander Säde is not Digwuren, Termer is not Digwuren, Martintg is not Digwuren, Suva is not Digwuren, Karabinier is not Digwuren, and Digwuren is not Peltimikko, believe it or not. The idea that the said editors should be held collectively responsible for something is weird, to say the least. Colchicum (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have seen so far it seems that this clown is really notorious. Colchicum (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws are shared with the other members, particularly Leena Hietanen. For this reason, I believe the flaws are better discussed together, in the article of Safka.

As for the remark -- good catch. The source of this misconception appears to be Petri Krohn (diff). I guess it's a symptom of the infamous "us vs. them" thinking, "them" being faceless interchangeable persons. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peltimikko (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like he has made enough noise to be written about, at least in Hufvudstadsbladet that I can read myself. Would guess the Finnish language newspapers have done the same. Närking (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, notable enough (although I'm still a [Category:Wikipedians against notability] member. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable indeed. His recent statements have been discussed a lot in both Hbl and HS. ☺ Spiby ☻ 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly political maverick but notorious as well - Skysmith (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP with a possible COI, who is not familiar with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing, wording and notability, is messing up the page. Please keep an eye on it. Colchicum (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But what the reason to use characterictic controversial in the lead? Why we do not use such characteristic for historians of the opposite side even heavily criticized?--Dojarca (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Camps? You mean circuses? He is not a controversial historian, he is a controversial author. He is not a historian at all, he is a sociologist. Colchicum (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello, Dojarca, your question implies it's all only about opinions on the same (reputably verifiable) facts, when it's patently clear that it's not. PetersV TALK 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smell before you step in. With such friends who needs enemies? Well, for an anti-Poetin propaganda campaign it would be great to call him historian (or, rather, hystorian), just to show what kind of people these historians are, but unfortunately he is not one of them. Colchicum (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is famous in Finland, Estonia and Russia, and has published several books. --Dogah (talk) 19:39, 1 April 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.