Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapani Koivuniemi

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. But consensus is also to rename and rewrite to cover the group rather than its founder. Sandstein 11:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tapani Koivuniemi

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

Tapani Koivuniemi runs a small publishing company and is certainly not notable for that (the publishing company itself does not have an article). This article purports to be about Koivuniemi, but mainly serves as a WP:COATRACK for material about a "cult" that Koivuniemi allegedly founded. That organisation is not notable either - it has a few dozen members, it doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia, it appears to be almost completely unremarkable (female members dress in feminine attire? seriously?) There has been a complaint about the content of the article at WP:BLPN. Wikipedia should not host material of this nature about living people. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably rename. We should almost certainly have an article about the cult itself. It has extensive coverage across literally dozens of reliable sources. I could go either way on the guy himself, but if anything the existing article should probably be renamed to be about the organization and not him, since you are right that it is mostly about the organization currently. Kevin (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep! As the contributor who first coined this article I am certainly in favour of NOT deleating it. There already exists a Finnish site, titled "Tapani Koivuniemen uskonlahko" - literally "The Tapani Koivuniemi Cult". This, I agree, could be an alternative title for the page. It is true to say that Koivuniemi is not notable for running a "small publishing company" - but the point, brought out in the article, is that the company is a "front" and money-making operation for the members of the cult. Demiurge1000 has missed the gravity of the story. "That organisation is not notable either". Where? This has been a huge story in the country where it took place - Finland - and widely reported. And again Demiurge1000 addds: "it appears to be almost completely unremarkable (female members dress in feminine attire? seriously?)." Yes, seriously! The reason the story of the cult first emerged was due to the increasingly strange demands that Koivuniemi was placing on the women; mouth-to-mouth kissing, introducing weight-loss programs (even for pregnant women), wearing "sexy" clothes. In a egaliatarian country such as Finland with a high proportion of women in high social places, this was reported in the papers as "hugely reactionary". So, in summation: CERTAINLY RETAIN THE PAGE, though perhaps rename it as The Tapani Koivunimei cult.TTKK (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I am unable to find anything useful to establish notability in English.Jarhed (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles don't need sources in English. Quoting the GNG: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. " Kevin (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. To repeat, I am unable to find anything, in English, that is useful to establish notability here on this English Wikipedia. That being the case, I am going to hold BLP rules as paramount and vote to delete this article as a possible BLP violation for a non-notable individual.Jarhed (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename (add 'Cult') per Kevin and TTKK - it is the cult that is notable (seems to have been quite a stir in Finland), and it is the subject of this article. (Demiurge, it's a coatrack only in the sense of being mis-titled, not of being biased.) The sources are already sufficient, I think, but a Finnish speaker could readily provide translations of sample quotes as further evidence and illustration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As its all about the group (who don't appear to be notable) I think the article should be moved away from a BLP title in the near future. 14:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- How on earth does major coverage in multiple national Finnish media outlets constitute 'not notable'? I can see arguing about the guy himself - and I agree with you that we would be better off renaming the article - but how can you say the group is non-notable? Kevin (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my opinion/interpretation od guidelines from my investigations - I don't give a damn if its kept or deleted or if you and others disagree with me. Minor group - perhaps the best thing would be an article about the tv show. Groups been in existence for like twenty years - google search results reveal little - the Finnish article uses citation and support standard that appear clearly imo below our own. The finish article hasn't even been edited in almost a year so it not like is a hot topic is it? - Off2riorob (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to go back and forth on AfD's too much like this, but am making an exception because I'm just seriously confused. The finnish wikipedia article does not matter - the fact that this group has received coverage in half a dozen major media outlets does. A quick google shows coverage in: YLE, helsingin sanomat, MTV3, ilta-sanomat (which is tabloidy,) mediuutiset, talouselämä, etc. Some of those aren't the best sources ever, but all of them should meet WP:RS, and helsingin sanomat and YLE are really high quality. How does a group with that much coverage not meet the GNG? (I don't mean that as a rhetorical question - I'm really curious why you think a group with that much coverage doesn't meet the gng.) Kevin (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My search revealed little notability. If your making a case for notability vague comments like they are in this and this and that are imo worthless assertions of notability unless you present diffs for investigation or even better add then to the article - that is something that impresses me. YLE TV did a docu/programe about them so perhaps that program is notable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines do not require sources to be in the article - they require sources to exist. Some of the Helsingin Sanomat sources are in the article already. The rest of the sources I mentioned are pretty easily googleable. I just linked you four RS'es in addition to the helsingin sanomat and YLE sources already mentioned in the article. Please explain how the six sources now explicitly brought up in this discussion fail to reach the level of coverage required by the GNG. Really, even without the other sources, two indepth articles in Helsingin Sanomat and a documentary produced by YLE are far more than is usually considered necessary to meet the GNG. Kevin (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but, this is notable based on Finnish resources. While perhaps not notable in the English world he is notable in Finland. This Wikipedia article, if worked on by those who can translate Finnish, can make this the most important English resource about Koivuniemi, and that's a very powerful thing!SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Repeated assertions are being made in this discussion that the foreign sources are reliable, and also that there is no need for them to be in English. I dispute that assertion. WP source guidelines require the availability of English translations, not the mere say-so of someone claiming fluency in the non-English language. Not stated anywhere, but implied by BLP policy, is that non-English sources must be evaluatable for reliability. With absolutely *no* English reliable sources to go on, such evaluation is virtually impossible. My preference is for all assertions about the reliability of non-English sources to stop immediately as plain POV, and for this deletion to go forward on the basis of English-only sources or direct translations with an accompanying and verifiable description of source reliability.Jarhed (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOENG states "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.[6]", so it seems that Finnish is not forbidden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think sourcing guidelines require the availability of English language sources, please quote them. (You won't be able to quote them, though: WP:GNG, WP:V, and every other policy we have dealing with it explicitly state that non-English sources are 100% acceptable.) Sources have to exist - sources don't have to exist in a place or in a language that you will be able to personally easily evaluate. It's not any different to state that Helsingin Sanomat is a reliable source than it is to state that the NYT is a reliable source. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that it's inappropriate for other people to talk about a foreign language source just because you don't speak the language that it's in.

I'm more than happy to provide translations of any part anyone particularly questions... but not here. That would be a content cleanup issue, which is not something to be handled at AfD. Kevin (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are at an impasse then, because if you think that BLP policy allows you to call someone a cult leader without impeccable and verifiable sources, you are misreading it.Jarhed (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is easier than that: if we rename the article as being about what is apparently a cult, not about the person, then the sources are quite sufficient. If it's any help, Helsingin Sanomat (for instance) is roughly equivalent to the Financial Times, a most respected source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its some kind of Christian sect isn't it. If you want to move it I don't think we should put "cult" in the title. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The organisation appears to be commonly referred to as Monday circle (or Monday Circle?) Maanantaipiiri could also be created as a redirect to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words used to describe them in some sources can definitely be fairly translated as cult. Since cult is an awfully loaded word in English, I wouldn't see a large problem with putting (sect) in the title instead of (cult), though - and it would also be backed up well enough by the sources to be justified. Maanantaipiiri and maitobaari are both sometimes used to refer to it, but both properly only refer to a segment of it. They should probably both be created as redirects to whatever title we end up using. Kevin (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are impeccable and verifiable sources. It doesn't matter if you can personally verify the source easily - if we were required to use sources that everyone could easily verify, then we couldn't use articles from journals or newspapers that are behind paywalls, or sources that weren't full-text available for free online, etc. For that matter, I'm not sure we'd even be able to use sources with big english words in them - what if someone didn't understand them? Helsingin Sanomat is an internationally recognized newspaper, and YLE is Finland's national broadcaster. You can easily confirm - even if you don't speak a word of Finnish - that HS has had multiple articles about this group, and that YLE has made a documentary about them. That clearly meets the threshold for notability established by the GNG (and remember, AFD is about notability, not content.) There is nothing in WP:BLP that suggests that it's unacceptable to have an article on a topic because you cannot personally understand the sources used. Although AfD shouldn't be about content cleanup - just notability, which is firmly established by the things you can verify - I also feel the need to point out that you've had two Wikipedians who speak Finnish who have both been here quite a while tell you that the content of the article is well supported by the included sources. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am here is because of the "cult" BLP issue which I had hoped would be completely handled by the delete. If this article is not going to be deleted, then my BLP concerns still stand. I agree with you that I can be satisfied by the Finnish speaking editors on this article that BLP concerns are taken care of. However, any such agreement that we reach can be completely undone in my mind by an editor who tells me that my BLP concerns don't matter.Jarhed (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns *don't* matter at an AfD. AfD is about notability, not content cleanup. A notable subject whose article has BLP concerns can be addressed through normal editing. BLP concerns are important and should be addressed, but this is not the proper venue to address them. Kevin (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming good faith and I am presuming in advance that we can work together to address the BLP concerns of naming somebody a cult leader. However, I would like you to step back from your viewpoint from just a minute, and consider how it might look from my vantage point. I am absolutely not accusing you of this, but people who push for cult articles tend to be kind of eccentric. They also tend to be insistent on their viewpoint. Again, I am not saying this of you, but I want you to at least try to show some understanding of my viewpoint. Naming somebody a cult leader bothers me and any reasonable person would want impeccable sources for such a charge. Creating an article about a cult is a highly charged issue, and I would caution anybody to be careful and contentious doing it. At any rate, I reiterate my delete vote and I am stepping away from this article until it is closed.Jarhed (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why BLP issues are concerning; half the stuff I do on ENWP is related to BLP issues. But you can't just scream BLP as a generic trump card. You might have some point if I were a brand new editor, or if I was not citing sources. Neither of those things are the case - I'm an established user well-familiar with BLP policies making arguments based on Wikipedia policy citing literally half a dozen reliable sources. Helsingin Sanomat is literally used as a source in over a thousand articles on ENWP already. I can understand your desire to disengage - this kind of thing isn't exactly fun - and I really do try to avoid going back and forth on AfD's like this generally, but this has just been bizarre. It's absolutely flabbergasting to me that anyone would argue that multiple lengthy articles in the premier media outlets of Scandinavia and a documentary on finland's national broadcaster are not sufficient to establish notability. Kevin (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we name an article even if some people think they are a cult and label them as such we don't put such and such a cult or such and such a sect in the title we put the name of the group. I am still a delete , nothing I have seen or heard leads me to agree that this group should have an en wikipedia article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how extensive coverage of this group in the six reliable sources directly mentioned so far does not pass the threshold established by the WP:GNG. Yes, this is a literal request. Kevin (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A notable topic backed by reliable sources. Being written for readers of English, en:wiki prefers English language sources if they are available; but that is not a requirement and no rule lists it as such. Which is a Good Thing: we readers of English need educating outside the box sometimes :) Andrew Dalby 08:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to focus article on the group rather than the founder. The sourcing noted above certainly meets and in fact exceeds the coverage that normally is found acceptable at AFD. Any BLP issues are can be handled through editting. Negative comments obviously need to be well-sourced, but BLP does not mean that biographies of living people may only contain positive material. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COATRACK. If the cult is notable it needs to be build well-sourced from the ground up to avoid saying things like this about living people. Note that most BLP policies apply to everything said about living people, both in biographies and in general articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite. I would do it now if I could read the sources, but I cannot. I came to close this AFD, and would have done so as a "keep" just based on the discussion. However, on reading the article, I agree that its flaws are more substantial than a simple move to a new title can address. I am satisfied that the group is notable, and that neutral article on that group is desirable, but this article needs more than a quick fix.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the next day or two, I'll go over the article, rewrite it to be about the group, take out anything that is an obvious problem, and take out anything that definitely is not supported by a source. I won't have time to do a complete rewrite for a while beyond that, though. 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the article a little bit. I reworded things that are obviously problems, like cult -> sect. I commented out a couple potentially really contentious things until I can provide inline citation for them. Everything that remains in the article is well supported by the HS articles used as sources. I will move and rewrite the article in a more serious way at some point to make it more appropriately about the group, but its current form no longer has BLP violations in it. (It may be the middle of next weekish before I both have the time and am on a network with easy access to all the sources.) Kevin (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The sect seems to be verifiably notable and it shouldn't be difficult for someone who speaks the language to rewrite this. The BLP issues are concerning to an extent but not a reason for outright deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (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.