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). The article doesn't include unsubstantiated "hearsay and speculation" anymore; every statement is referenced with reliable sources. The motivation for the crime has already generated a lot of interest, and multiple sources have covered the attacker's profile in non-trivial manner. The nominator's rationale strong enough to initiate a discussion on merging this article with 2011 Norway attacks, but not strong enough to warrant a deletion. WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR are guidelines (as opposed to gospel), best treated with common sense and necessary exceptions. The article can be re-nominated for deletion after a few weeks, if the coverage of the subject doesn't persist beyond contemporaneous news. utcursch | talk 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Behring Breivik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Loaded with hearsay and speculation. Classic WP:BLP1E. Per WP:PERPETRATOR, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." ShipFan (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• 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]
    • You need to get over your imaginary "conviction" requirement. From your own link:

For perpetrators

The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[9] The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[10]

• This has not yet seen "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". From your own link. ShipFan (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stian (talk) 12:26, 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. A suspect is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at the comments here and reflect on your own actions. Good faith indeed. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 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]
  • Please assume good faith. A suspect is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 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]
  • A suspect is not a conviction See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A conviction is not a requirement to satisfy notability. Stian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case the subject is only notable for one event. Fails WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (talk) 12:49, 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]
  • Please assume good faith. ShipFan (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge unless something truly notable (apart from 2011 attack) pops up, and this AfD is not going down with speedy close. I will just restate my very original conviction that this is one truly classical case of WP:BLP1E, ditto. --hydrox (talk) 14:51, 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]
  • They confessed or were convicted. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.. ShipFan
    • A conviction is not a requirement to satisfy notability. Stian (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case this is a clear WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See Jared Lee Loughner. He hasn;t been convicted, and he nearly assassinated a memer of Congress! You saying HE shoun't have an article? Yup, because he hasn't confessed nor been convicted yet. Hmmmm, I think most would disagree. SOXROX (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The person was arrested, more or less red-handed, at Utøya. There are no doubts about the actus reus expressed anywhere in the media, only the mens rea. The "serious consideration" has been given, but it does not mean that the consideration results in "no article" each and every time. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't matter. A suspect is not a conviction per WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is nothing in WP:PERPETRATOR that says a conviction is an absolute requirement. Osama bin Laden was never "convicted" of anything either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Osama bin Laden was notable for more than one event. ShipFan (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • But this alleged "terrorist" is also notable for more than one event. There are two events. Kavas (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable, extremely significant event. Stian (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event is notable. The person fails to meet notability criteria. ShipFan (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clear notability, well-cited. Askild (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the person fails notability criteria at this stage. Being merely suspected of a crime is not sufficient criteria for inclusion. ShipFan (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERPETRATOR, which you like to cite, says an article is justified if the victim of the crime is a renowned national figure. Think the Prime Minister might qualify? It further states that if the execution is unusual -- which is obviously the case here -- or if this is a well-documented historic event -- which it isn't yet, but is obviously going to be -- then an article is justified. Again, read policies before citing them to back up your argument. WP:PERPETRATOR does not back up the point of view in favor of which you are citing it. Stian (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Last time I checked the Prime Minister was still alive, therefore is not a victim. "Obviously going to be" is crystal ballery. ShipFan (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the degree pf suspision is high in this case. Mange01 (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW, can an adminstrator please step in? WWGB (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not SNOW. This needs to be examined objectively. ShipFan (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, the subject is confirmed by the police and authorities as a suspect. Bjelleklang - talk 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is not a conviction. See WP:PERPETRATOR. ShipFan (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the subject of this article has not yet been identified as a suspect by any verifiable official source let alone charged with any crime. Too many people are trying to use Wikipedia to publish speculative commentary on current news events rather than as an encyclopedia of verified facts. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A suspect is not a conviction per WP:PERPETRATOR. Probably, he is the PERPETRATOR, but we should abide by the rule. The article material should be moved to 2011 Norway Attacks. Kavas (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.68.201 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2011 Norway attacks#Alleged perpetrator. This is obviously a very emotional issue for some but as things stand at the moment, in the absence of a confession or conviction, this fails notability. David B in Canberra (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: As per David B in Canberra. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Keimzelle above Tere (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge Come on people, we have an established, effective way of dealing with topics of emergent notability. Innocent until proven guilty, non-notable until history proves otherwise. If you want to debate them, do so at the meta-level, not in AfD every single time. Skomorokh 13:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "If you want to debate them, do so at the meta-level". Agreed. Kavas (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has already been several discussons that has shown no consensus to merge. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A conviction is not an absolute requirement for notability WP:PERPETRATOR. And he is not only a suspect anymore as the police has issued an Indictment against him. There is also enough reliable sources out there to write an article, meny of whch stll has not been used here. The article needs editing, cleanup and more referencing. But deleting it is just silly. Rettetast (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An indictment is a formal accusation, not a conviction. ShipFan (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what. A conviction is not a requirement for notability. Rettetast (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: He is and will be relevant and his name will be linked to the terrorist attacks from now on, whether he is convicted or not. In case of a conviction he is relevant, because he has committed this attrocious crime and will probably serve as an example for home-grown-non-muslim terrorism. If he is aquitted he is most certainly relevant for being in the centre of one of the most notable blunders in police investigations. He is named in news reports all over the world as the possible perpetrator. If he proves innocent, he will probably welcome a wp-article, saying that he didn't do what he was accused of. His name will serve as an example for the need to protect even strongly suspected suspects. Therefore, his relevance is definite. Everything els is a question of the content of the article, not its existance. Phlyz (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is crystal ballery at its worst. ShipFan (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Hopefully it goes without saying that if we can't keep, we will at least merge.) Breivik just took the world record for rampage killing by an amazing margin of >30, and he didn't even kill himself, so we'll be hearing from him for decades to come like the Unabomber.

As for Shipfan's objection (so repetitive I can read it in my mind's eye), Wikipedia is NOT a criminal court; we don't care about 'innocent until proven guilty'. Interesting how people are willing to appeal to tiny probabilities ('oh, he might not have done it, he's only a "suspect", we can't have an article on him!' Yeah, well, evolution is just a "theory". Beware scare-quotes.) when they aren't willing to equally arrogantly ignore the probabilities and dismiss cases of confessions - though false confessions are extremely common. And as for PERPETRATOR, it specifically says a split-out article is merited when the original article is big; 2011 Norway attacks is awful big already and is only going to grow even longer. 90 people do not get spectacularly murdered in a wealthy First World democracy without a lot of coverage; judging from every precedent like the VA Tech shootings, we will need to split out the shooter's biography - insisting that a split that will happen be delayed until the absolute last minute based on an extremist reading of a random guideline is POINTiness of the highest degree.

One final comment. People are comparing the obviousness of Breivik's guilt to Jared Loughner disfavorably on the basis that Loughner was arrested at the scene. Where, pray tell, do you think Breivik was arrested? --Gwern (contribs) 13:09 23 July 2011 (GMT)

• Comment Wikipedia has a rule similar to a Criminal Court: Do not start a page unless the suspect is proven guilty. Kavas (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Clearly an example of WP:BLP1E, which is a BLP policy. Just a suspect who allegedly did what? The exact acts covered in the main article. Duplicative. Also, this sort of monsterous piece of human filth would be proud to have a Wikipedia page. 50.73.213.81 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — 50.73.213.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he was caught on the crime scene, and filmed by a NRK helicopter. The man will be a very important individual in Norwegian history, and in this event. He will be analyzed to the bone over the next weeks, and his trial will be the most important trial in my country since after the war. I cannot see how this fails to qualify him for page here. Knutsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡælˈeːrɛz/)^[1] 13:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Ridiculous nomination. At the very most the article should be merged. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)} Keep whether or not he was or was not the perpetrator, that he has been so massively associated with the events by the media and by the authorities prominently publicising his being charged with the crimes, that he will be forever linked with them. Notability is thus clear. WP:BLP1E probably applies at this point, but the policy says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented [...] a separate biography may be appropriate.", and there is no doubting that Breivik's role within the event is significant. BLP1E does go on to say that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.", it's true that we can't be certain of this, but we can be as all-but certain that there will be extensive coverage of all aspects of his trial and much discussion between then and now (based on comparable past events). While I'm not familiar with the Norwegian legal system, court appearances would seem to fall under the "scheduled or expected" future events criteria of WP:CRYSTAL - there probably isn't a non-speculative article that could be written about that at present but we can be sufficiently certain they will happen (or that there will be significant comment if they don't) such that ongoing notability is pretty much guaranteed. Finally, WP:SPINOUT recommends breaking large articles into smaller chunks, and while the attacks article is not too long at present, it's quickly going to grow. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR specifically exempt high profile events such as this. The perp guideline simply says to consider not creating articles on unconvicted criminals, it does not disallow it completely. Suspected criminals who receive significant international media attention for their role in historic events are an exception, in my opinion. Qrsdogg (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Gwern: "2011 Norway attacks is awful big already and is only going to grow even longer. 90 people do not get spectacularly murdered in a wealthy First World democracy without a lot of coverage; judging from every precedent like the VA Tech shootings, we will need to split out the shooter's biography - insisting that a split that will happen be delayed until the absolute last minute based on an extremist reading of a random guideline is WP:POINTiness of the highest degree." Boud (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: i don't want my copy of Gwern's argument to be misunderstood as favouring the known demographic bias in en.wikipedia. This bias remains a problem, but deleting material related to en.WP-demographically favoured groups is not going to improve encyclopedic coverage of en.WP-demographically disfavoured groups. It would be good if poor-country massacres - e.g. drone-based killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan - were also covered encyclopedically. The difficulty constantly comes back to the issue of WP:RS. Anyway, that's another topic. Boud (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The attacks were extremely high profile and there is already ample rs to develop a biography. TFD (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a notable individual that people want accurate information on. Period. - Cecropia (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He is at least as notable as the Unabomber or Timothy Veigh. Trotskyist (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:PERP; also WP:NOTNEWS – “breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information”, and that includes the note at the bottom of WP:PERP. ABB is a suspect and a target of speculation, not a convicted perpetrator. If you want to work on up-to-the-minute coverage, contribute to Wikinews. Ahruman (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable after yesterday's unfortunate events. But perhaps a merge/redirect is apprporiate in the short term until more information becomes available. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Supporting arguments above more than suffice.-- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge. Basically duplicated in 2011 Norway attacks anyway. A lot of the keep !votes do not seem to be able to make the distinction between the event and the person. Some of the !votes here are very uncivil and bordering on personal attacks against the nominator. This is an encyclopedia. We must remain cool, calm, dispassionate and detached from the subject. Thin Arthur (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is an urgent need to accumulate knowledge about this horrendous crime, and specifically about the background and character of the people involved. Pcp071098. —Preceding undated comment added 14:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Already sufficient for an entry. The article will further expand with meaningful information as the suspect will stand for trial. I recommend trimming the chapter on the murderer in the attack entry. BTW I see no problem with the nomination. There are pros and cons for keeping this article and this kind of articles. A civil discussion can create a balance. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable references to justify the article. Even if he happens to be proven innocent in the future, there remains more than enough information for this article to stay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BLP1E isn't meant for people known for very important events: that's why we have articles such as Seung-Hui Cho or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's an important event: Norway was hit by her own son. The media say he was willing to explain his reasons. If we don't want this to repeat, we need to hear his reasons and see them here, in the free encyclopedia. Hiding problems just leads to events like this.Thalarctos (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is disputing that the event is important. The event already has an article: 2011 Norway attacks. ShipFan (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Removing the page would complicate finding relevant information on the suspected perpetrator. Furthermore. The article is currently very clear on the issue of guilt. I.E. Consequent in using alleged. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep The deletion would at best be symbolic. I understand the reasoning, but I don't see any point in doing so. There are no indications that Behring Breivik won't stand trial, and even if he doesn't, it'll be notable enough that he was so obviously singled out as the perpetrator. Peter ^Isotalo 15:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because the guy is guilty. Just look at his picture. 81.82.101.135 (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a court of law. While he is not convicted yet there can be no reasonably doubt for his de facto guilt and relevance. Especially when looking at notorious war criminals (who never got caught) or other amok killers (who killed themselves) (and hence never came on trial) the reasoning of this AdF becomes invalid. --Quassy_.DE 15:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge There is nothing in this article which isn't already in the main article on the attacks and he isn't notable for anything outside yesterday's events. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Common sense here, please?--EchetusXe 15:45, 23 July 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.