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. Consensus is to delete, as per relavent policies the panda ₯’ 22:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release of hostage Christina Meier[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Appears to fail WP:EVENT, as I can find very little coverage after the initial news cycle, and no reliable sources re-analysing this event later on. Moswento ^talky 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, short-lived news story with no evidence of any subsequent coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event has no long-term significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On German Wikipedia deletion of an article on Christina Meier also was discussed in 2007. It was then changed to a redirect to the charity de:Ora Kinderhilfe she worked for at the time. Her name does not appear in the article up to now which may be due to the restrictions on Biographies of living persons. Ms Meier was present in the German news then, but has not been featured ever since. So, I second the article please be deleted.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is important for a ongoing history of engagments / missions of Norwegian military forces. The article is linked to the Military of Norway and Norwegian specialforces articles. Wikipedia is an information platform, where people can get information and get a broader perspective and information that otherwise might not reach the general public. Mortyman (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No separate article is required for documenting the relation between Ms Meier and the Norwegian military.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article is not so much about Mrs Meier, but the types of missions the Norwegian military has been involved with. Furthermore, there are several pages here on Wikipedia, about hostages that has been rescued or killed in various wars ( Iraq, Afghanistan etc ). Both journalists, aidworkers , construction workers etc. This discussion of deletion is not acceptable. Mortyman (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article is about a hostage-related mission, rather than Mrs Meier, but the problem is that there are no reliable sources suggesting this hostage-related mission has long-term significance in the history of the Norwegian military. Other hostage situations on Wikipedia, however, have played a more significant role in a particular conflict, and have consequently been analysed and discussed long after the event. If there are exceptions, it's because no-one has noticed them to nominate them for deletion yet. Moswento ^talky 07:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above mentioned deWiki AfD closed with the note that not the person but the event was notable. Which is what this article reflects. Agathoclea (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that this is not the point. I already mentioned Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no reason for the hostage's name to be mentioned any more in such a prominent place and way.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only enWiki relevant Policy would be WP:BLPNAME which the article complies with (significant context). As far as the assumption that the article on deWiki does not have her name due to BLP reasons goes, it is not based on facts. The account of the kidnapping was deleted as part of a major rewite of the article under a cryptic editsummary of structure/tightening and due to the length of the diff obviously ran under the radar of those familiar with the reasons of the original placement. That said, I can see the reasoning for the incident not to be elaborated at the article of the organisation as it is not a defining moment of that organisation. Nevertheless the mentioned AFD closed with a declaration of the event being notable and newscoverage was also international. There was coverage analysing the incident and the obvious tabloid style talkshow stuff. What pinches it for me is the fact that the incident is used as a comparative reference a few years later. The talkshow link btw rules out hiding her name per WP:BLPNAME. Care has to be taken that the article does not develop into a coattrack for a bio on Ms Maier but that is a totally seperate issue. Agathoclea (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention in a list of hostages on a Catholic news website doesn't do much to highlight enduring notability. International coverage may be an indication of an event's notability, but if that coverage only appears within a brief news cycle, the event is still not notable per WP:EVENT. The Backview source is within the same news cycle, so has the same issue. Moswento ^talky 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Agathoclea, I just would like to add that this is not only about any policies, but it is about legal compliance. European and German law apply to all content that is available in this country. So if Ms Meier would like her name not to appear any more she could have it removed from any language version of Wikipedia whatsoever because time has passed and she was by far not as popular as, say, the Princess of Monaco. I can tell because I deal with such matters. The WMF has already suffered some setbacks at courts in the last years because of stubborn community positions on matters of personal data. So, it is no use to discuss this only as a matter of community rules.—I'm off for some time now, so I won't take part in the rest of the discussion.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks to be a notable event covered world-wide. I am One of Many (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I find this not acceptable. It is not acceptable that certain people wants to discuss this topic endlessly, until they get their wanted wish of deletion. The article has been discussed and as I see it there is no particulare reason to delete it. It is noteworthy and I ask that the deletion warning from the article to be removed now. Mortyman (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re the above: this event was covered worldwide whaen it happened but has generated nolasting coverage: see WP:EVENT. As for the argument that this article should be kept becaise it is a notable incident in the history of the Norwegian armed forces, this is an argument for merging this article into the appropriate article about them.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ he articles about the Military forces of Norway and specialforces of Norway has link to this article. To put several missions on one page will make the one article too big eventually. Mortyman (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT Or, if there is an article on the Norwegian Special Forces, perhaps merge it there. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the mission seems important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the taking of Western hostages in Afghanistan is unfortunately not that unusual an event. A brief burst of coverage, and then nothing. If there were an obvious merge target, such as a list of such operations in Afghanistan, I'd not be opposed to a merge but I've not been able to find anything. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not notable as an event by itself, and possible WP:BLP issues. Would Forsvarets Spesialkommando be a valid merge target? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2014 (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.