Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Diesen

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 no consensus. The WP:ATTACK arguments for deletion are poorly substantiated: if somebody is portrayed unflatteringly in reliable sources, reporting this in the article about them is not an attack, but a requirement of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Attack pages are to be speedily deleted by admins, but this is in my view as an administrator so far from being an attack page that I would not seriously consider deleting it (and apparently neither has any other admin chosen to do so).

This leaves us with the question of notability, and in this regard there is no consensus here, because discussion focuses mostly on whether this is an attack page, not whether there is substantial coverage in reliable sources. A renomination focused on this question is possible. Sandstein 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Diesen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to have been created primarily as an attack page. (Redacted) See VRT Ticket 2022031910000677. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted private information. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Norway, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an article that only smears, and all nuance is deleted Gead1979 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is a highly profilic and high-profile commentator on RT who has received widespread media attention[1] in multiple countries for his activities in what the sources describe as the "Russian propaganda machinery".[2][3] Another source notes that he "has an important role in RT as the Western expert, which gives legitimacy to what clearly appears to be the Kremlin's version"[4]
On the other hand he is a professor at a third-tier university (recently upgraded to university) with a very low number of citations in Google Scholar[5], so he would hardly be notable for his scholarly pursuits alone. Hence, the article's current focus is WP:DUE. However, the Putin-affiliated Valdai Discussion Club does list him as one of their "experts."
The article accurately discusses him based on how he is usually portrayed in mainstream Scandinavian reliable sources and duly focuses on the notable aspects of his biography (his RT career over the past couple of years) based on that RS coverage (that also spans a couple of years). Alas, the nominator has made it impossible for editors to take this nomination seriously with his false claim that the page is an "attack page" (defined as an "unsourced or poorly sourced" article when the article is in fact meticulously sourced based on a substantial number of accurately represented mainstream RS that discuss him in depth).
The fact that an article accurately describes an individual who is notable primarily for his role in the Russian propaganda effort (over a period of several years), based on a respectable number of accurately represented mainstream RS, is no reason to delete that article. Neither is the fact that RT would disagree with the article. Also, mentioning that someone so intimately involved with RT has been described as promoting Russian propaganda is hardly controversial from a mainstream perspective; for comparison, this is how RT's editor-in-chief is described: Margarita Simonyan. --PetterLøkd (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PetterLøkd. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a BLP that fits the definition of WP:ATTACK. As an author, he would not pass GNG for all the reasons the article creator, Petter Løkd, states above; therefore, to create a BLP for the sole purpose of desparaging them as a propagandist based on allegations by opposing views makes this BLP a candidate for G10. The reasons presented to keep actually state that the individual is only notable because of the accusations against him, primarily by Norwegian media (which I am unable to confirm as RS). Putting the allegations aside by what may/may not be politicized or biased media, this BLP would probably not pass GNG as written. Atsme 💬 📧 16:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atsme's comment above. MarioGom (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC) ^{underlined words added for clarity 04:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep The fact that sources paint a subject in bad light and might be disparaging against the subject, that does not mean the article is an attack - as long as it is with due weight in regards to the subject in question and based on reliable sources, which this seem to be. Checking the available Norwegian sources, I feel this passes at least GNG. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This page only publishes smears to present Diesen as an propagandist. While all articles criticizing these attacks are deleted by the same editors. Diesen is a professor who has published 9 books, developed important concepts in political economy and has been praised widely by both politicians and academics. In this "biography" he is presented as a "propagandist" with all articles repudiating this view are deleted by the same editors who attempt to smear him. Gead1979 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
He is cited 299 times in Google Scholar and works at a former vocational college that has recently become a university. Despite that he has received significant media attention for his prominent role in promoting Russian propaganda in Scandinavia. Virtually all mainstream RS coverage of him (excluding RT of course) discuss, extensively, his "important role in RT" and Diesen "as a part of the Russian propaganda machinery" as sources note (see the article). This is how the Norwegian Helsinki Committee's Russia advisor Aage Borchgrevink describes him: "He has an important role in RT as the Western expert, which gives legitimacy to what clearly appears to be the Kremlin's version [...] His writings are unreliable, its factual basis is doubtful, and characterized by the content and form of Russian propaganda, as expressed in RT and Sputnik"[6] (the source here, Forskerforum, is the magazine owned by the Norwegian Association of Researchers, the main trade union for academics) The "sources" that allegedly "repudiated" his portrayal in mainstream sources were low-quality "sources" including far-right blog no:Resett that is known to publish factually inaccurate content and racist material, and Russian propaganda outlets; but even those "sources" took as their starting point that he is widely described as a Russian propagandist by mainstream media, organizations and experts in Scandinavia. --PetterLøkd (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are what's helping to substantiate WP:ATTACK, along with your apparent attempt to RGW and expose this academic as whatever you consider him to be which is clearly POV. WP is NOTSOAPBOX. Please allow the process to work w/o further desparagement which may result in you being blocked, especially considering there is a VRT ticket that must be considered by the admin who closes this AFD. Atsme 💬 📧 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in personal attacks. Whether you feel RT's commentators have been subjected to "great wrongs" by mainstream sources, this is not the place to right it. We accurately describe the world based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This is a discussion about the merits of this article. Your personal attack on me, and ludicrous comments about my appropriate discussion of the article's merits, is disruptive and unrelated to this AfD and further disruption may result in you being blocked. --PetterLøkd (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the PA you're referring to, and provide a diff. Atsme 💬 📧 02:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your false accusation[7] that I have engaged in any form of "desparagement" in my reasonable and on-topic comment[8] that discussed the merits of the article and the sources used as well as the DUE/UNDUE concerns relating to whether he is really more notable as an academic (he clearly isn't), constitutes a personal attack on me and disrupts the discussion on this page. Please only offer commentary that is relevant to the merits of the article. --PetterLøkd (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but so far, 6 editors consider this BLP to be in violation of WP:ATTACK - An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; You created the article, contributed approx. 78% of the text, are attacking me for explaining why it's a violation of BLP, and arguing with me & others over our delete iVotes. What I'm doing IS relevant to the merits of the article, and doing so is not a PA against you. Atsme 💬 📧 06:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. There is no attack page anywhere for the reasons explained by multiple editors. A Wikipedia:Attack page is a page that is "unsourced or poorly sourced", not a meticulously sourced article that accurately reflects the coverage of the subject in mainstream Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that is really no different from the coverage here of RT (TV network) and other Russian propaganda efforts in numerous other articles, including the one on RT's own editor-in-chief which is in fact even more critical. Your complaints about this article appear to be based entirely on disagreement with the (mainstream, high-quality and reliable) sources themselves and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The claim, on the other hand, that the subject has been "praised widely" etc. was based on fringe sources such as no:Resett. Note that this article has also been created independently by four different editors in four different language editions, that include the same criticism of his prominent and active role with RT, a broadcaster that is banned in the European Union and described as "a major propaganda outlet" in the English Wikipedia's article on it. In fact, false claims that accurate reporting in mainstream, Western reliable sources about Russia's propaganda efforts is an "attack" is something many journalists, experts and human rights activists focused on Russia are quite used to. --PetterLøkd (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an attack page. G10 likely also applies, but since we're here... Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atsme, Gead1979, and Jip Orlando. GregJackP Boomer! 23:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note how the editors most vehemently opposed to this article engage in BLP violations e.g. here[9], seemingly as revenge for Borchgrevink's critical comments about Diesen. For the record, Borchgrevink, the Helsinki Committee's expert on the human rights situation in Russia, has never been accused of "spreading propaganda for Washington" by any reliable sources. The only source to ever criticize him, the far-right fringe blog no:Resett (for an English article, see RW[10]) (that the editor who felt the need to "vote" multiple times above also attempted to use as a source in this article), was denied membership in professional journalistic associations and is regularly criticized by Norway's fact-checking site Faktisk.no (owned by the large media companies in Norway). This article on the other hand is based on mainstream sources such as the Norwegian equivalent of CNN, so it's simply a matter of mainstream, credible reliable sources offering a mainstream perspective (as seen in this article), versus pro-Kremlin fringe sources (cited by opponents of the article). --PetterLøkd (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Borchgrevink is widely known to spread propaganda on behalf of Washington under the guise of "human rights", and Bogen has written an article for the Atlantic (The Kremlin's Trojan Horses) in which he blacklists Norwegian journalists, politicians and academics who are not sufficiently critical of Russia and who have criticised NATO. These are propagandists smearing opponents and is now repeated on Wikipedia. Gead1979 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)— Gead1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Gead1979 While you can comment as much as you like, you only get to !vote once. I've struck your second and third delete !votes. GregJackP Boomer! 10:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — WP:ATTACK is being thrown around, especially at the editor who created said article, yet not one editor has gone through with G10 and/or few have attempted at rewriting offending aspects of the article. How curious. WP:DOITYOURSELF, no? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Jonatan Svensson Glad's rationale, with pertinence to GNG. Using non-English sources is fine, per WP:NOENG (albeit, I do not speak Norwegian); yet, a quick Google search on the subject returned a piece published in Asia Times (2021), which describes the subject as "[a] leading pundit on Russia" and proceeds to quote the subject's work. Furthermore, assuming this is the same subject — there is a Radio National interview (2014) between Diesen and journalist Waleed Aly, which was released whilst the subject was a lecturer at Macquarie University (might be useful in building the article). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:35, 25 March 2022 (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.