Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Stefán H. Ófeigsson

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 of the debate was keep. May the force be with you! - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Stefán H. Ófeigsson

A date-rapist with an university degree, this is tabloid material, not encyclopedic information. There is also a doubt whether this coverage is legal according to the Icelandic Privacy protection laws. The Google search "Stefán H. Ófeigsson" -Wikipedia yields 57 results. Bjarki 22:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Icelandic version of this article is also being voted on, the current tally is 7 delete votes and 1 neutral, these are all from admins (all regularly active users are admins in iswiki) so 8 out of 15 admins have voted. Keep this is in mind when assessing whether or not this is considered a notable or encyclopedic subject matter by Icelanders. --Bjarki 13:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The vote has finished in is:, final result: 10 deletes and 1 neutral, Ævar did not vote. The article has been deleted.--Bjarki 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

6 of those votes (since you're counting anonymous votes) state reasons that have nothing to do with the notability of the subject as such ("it has only caused trouble", "it's harmful to the Icelandic Wikipedia", "it will undermine the image of the site", "it's indecent"). I also think it's quite discourteous of you to place your comment above everyone elses (rather than in ascending time order) in bold as if what you have to say on the matter was somehow much more important than what everyone else has to say about it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally counted a anonymous vote, this has now been corrected. You are probably leaving it out on purpose but 4 of those 7 votes say that the article is unneeded, additional two votes are from users who have made it perfectly clear that they think this is an unencyclopedic subject (one of those users is me). This comment is not a answer to a specific vote so it makes most sense to place it at the top. I am the one who started the vote now, am I not allowed to amend my original message as new information appears, am I not? The comment is bolded to draw attention to it, the fact that another language version of this article is being voted on is quite significant whatever your opinion on it is. --Bjarki 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

My comment wasn't intended to provide a complete synopsis of the votes but merely to point out the fallacious arguments being put forward in some of them. To state that this article should be deleted because "it has only caused trouble" or "will undermine the image of the site" is similar to suggesting that the article on John Seigenthaler Sr. be deleted for similar reasons.

Regarding my comment on your top-posting that comment related to netiquette, it was not in any way related to the contents of your post, so don't make it out to be. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it the vote on Meta explicitly overrules the vote on is:. That vote is currently suspended (pending anybody providing valid arguments for the deletion) with the voting at 8 keep, 0 delete (and I will be voting keep there if/when voting reopens). Anyway, what users of the is: wiki consider notable or encylopaedic has no bearing on what users of en: feel.Thryduulf 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ævar is the only user at is: who contends that this meta vote he prematurely started is actually something which matters. --Bjarki 14:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the fact that it was prematurely started reason enough to abandon the whole idea of getting third party input on the matter? Might it not be advisable to refactor the page and try again? One might conclude that your refusal for a vote on meta is due to the wider community being in favor of keeping the article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 15:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Several users, including Biekko agreed that a binding vote should take place on meta to decide the future of the article, without any mention of a local vote being held first. Biekko later made a post that began the current vote where he stated (yet again, this time direcly and not by a vote) that a binding vote should be held on the Icelandic Wikipedia first and and only in the case of the result of that vote not being clear would a vote on meta be held. The terms of the vote [1] were later modified by another user to state that whatever the majority decided to do with the article (options being keep and delete) would be the outcome of the vote. So the only way I see this ending in a vote on meta is if the vote were to end in a tie.

I haven't voted in the Icelandic vote because I think that a vote on meta should be held as was the original binding agreement. I don't consider it the private matter of individual Wikipedia editions to decide whether articles on certain topics which are clearly considered notable on the biggest Wikipedia edition should be included. This is not a case of the Icelandic Wikipedia merely having such extreme standard on notability either, it doesn't, we have tens of articles on subjects much less notable than this one, this is a case of selective enforcement on one subject. Furtheremore when people are listing harmful to the project as their reasons for deleting something that in my opinion is something that warrants a project-wide opinion. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

5 people had voted in favour of the meta solution when you started the vote there, 9 people have voted in the local elections thus acknowledging it. It surprises me that you are such a huge formalist all of the sudden that you are speaking about "binding" agreements on wikipedia! on the basis of 5 votes! I did not foresee that the vote on meta could possibly continue and in any case it would be very time consuming to translate the debate so I sought to end it without outside involvement and the community agreed. You may think votes like "this is damaging the project" are worthless and I would agree with you if it was about controversial but obviously significant material but this is not it, it is my sincere believe that this is tabloid stuff with no encyclopedic value at all. With that I must say that I do understand and respect your point of view, I simply disagree. This is nothing personal, you have made the Icelandic Wikipedia into what it is and I hope you will keep up the good work, I will continue to support you in doing good things as I have done in the past. :) --Bjarki 02:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you think it has no encyclopedic value at all why did you propose that it be deleted but stated that you'd accept the removal of the criminal case, the image and "preposterous categories" (presumably the rapist and/or science web categories) as a compromise? One can only assume that you do think the subject is notable but are uncomfortable with having certain information in the article. Since I think the subject itself is notable (and would be with or without the criminal case) I originally wrote an article article on it with the same goals that I have when writing any other article, to explain the topic in question from a fair and neutral point of view. To write an article on this man and not include what he's arguably most notable for would would be biased an unneutral.

Regarding my future with the project (iswiki) I don't think I'll continue to contribute to it. The only reason I ever did was with the goal helping create a free, unbiased and neutral information resource. Although I do realize that I could continue to make uncontroversial edits there — which I dare say applies to all of my approximately 13,000 edits save for around two dozen on this topic — I belive that an encyclopedia needs articles on controversial topics as well. This article is unanimously (save for the nomination) considered notable enough to exist on the English Wikipedia and I consider it a major flaw and a severe sign of systemic bias that the Icelandic Wikipedia doesn't consider this a subject that it can have an article on, especially considering that this is a matter local to Iceland which, all other factors being equal, should work in its favor on the Icelandic Wikipedia and against it on the English one. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the article but removing the references to the rape case would be a lousy solution, I suggested that as a compromise like adult people sometimes do while trying to reach an agreement on something. --Bjarki 20:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The article is a biographical article on Stefán H. Ófeigsson, an Icelander born on June 20, 1977. He holds a masters degree (MSc) in space engineering (one of the few, if not the only Icelander to hold such a degree). He has played an instrumental role in investigating the possibility of Iceland joining the European Space Programme for which he received approximately US$7,000 (450,000 ISK) funding in 2003 from Tæknisjóður (now Rannís, The Icelandic Centre for Research [2]).

The man is 28 years old, he received a grant for his ESA project, a project has not given any results so far and will probably not continue now. A university degree is hardly enough for a Wikipedia article, even if it is a rare one.

On November 17, 2005, he was sentenced to 2½ years in prison by the Reykjavík district court for raping an 18 year old girl in November the previous year, in a case which, upon his sentencing, was widely covered in the Icelandic media. It was covered on the front page of DV the third most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~17% market share and on the opening fold (page 2) of Fréttablaðið (The Newspaper), the most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland (~65% market share).

When the case was at its peak, 7 of the 20 highest ranking queries in Ebmla, an internet search engine run by Morgunblaðið (The Morning Paper), the second most widely distributed newspaper in Iceland with ~45% market share whose website mbl.is ranks as the second most visited website in Iceland [3], were directly related to the case. On the web, the case has been covered by that website, and on December 3, 2005 by visir.is, the most popular website in Iceland. The article on visir.is cited the Icelandic Wikipedia article, which in itself marks a milestone for the Icelandic Wikipedia, since it had never before been cited by any mainstream news source (see citation record).

These media outlets as well as the search engine operate on a market of 290,000 people. There is nothing unique about DV's (the Icelandic counterpart of the UK's The Sun) coverage, that paper features a different pedophile/rapist/drug dealer/murderer on its cover every week. Wikipedia's role in creating news in this case does not speak for the encyclopedic value of the article.

The case hasn't just been covered by what you'd call one tabloid, it has been covered on the front page of two newspapers and various other news mediums, this man is more notable than you make him out to be. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not a greater coverage than the average rapist is likely to get. DV names the person and blow their face all over the cover, Fréttablaðið often mentiones the person by name and perhaps includes a small picture, Morgunblaðið reports about the verdict but does not reveal the identity of the person except in homicide cases. All of this is the "standard procedure" of the Icelandic media, there is nothing special about this case.

All these things add up to notability:

1. Having a master's degree in a rarely practiced scientific field.
2. Media coverage of the criminal case which was farabove the avarge of the typical criminal case. This also is a great example of how Icelandic media covers its criminals.
3. His work related to the ESA.
4. The high-profile removal of this articles from the most popular science website in Iceland which got covered on the most visited news website in Iceland.

—Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As a space engineer, Stefán had written 16 articles for Vísindavefurinn (The Science Web) [4], a science website in Icelandic and English which ranks as the 13th most popular website in Iceland and the most popular one dealing with science. All of these answers were removed without explanation from the site; this fact is included in the article and was the subject of the article at visir.is, which cited the article on the Icelandic Wikipedia.

Vísindavefurinn is a website where students and teachers at the University of Iceland answer questions from readers, his contributions there were insignificant, the average Wikipedian has probably contributed more information to the web.--Bjarki 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The mere fact that it was covered on the most popular web news medium in Iceland makes it notable. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Newsworthy in a tiny community, not encyclopedic. --Bjarki 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you will find all people from Iceland unencyclopedic because it happens to be a relatively small community? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The person this article discusses is clearly notable in Icelandic society, every bit of information in the article is verifiable and is sourced in the References section, I therefore vote keep. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 22:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This person is getting front page coverage in Icelandic newspapers. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-5 22:58

  A guy who beat up a man in a wheelchair is also getting a front page coverage in Icelandic newspapers, it isn't a really hard place to get to. --Bjarki 23:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia:Biography this article fits the criteria for inclusion, Stefán is a person "achieving renown or notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events". Every bit of information in the article is also verifiable, it can be expanded, and every bit of information is cited. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  This is your feeling, I can't see how he fulfils this criteria. --Bjarki 23:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  I'd hate to repeat myself but it's because he "[achived] notoriety for [his] involvement in newsworthy events", the article is verifiable and is properly cited. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  So pretty much every criminal who gets in the news is a encyclopedia material? --Bjarki 23:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  His degree, his work relating to the ESA, the criminal case, the news coverage of it is all encyclopedic material. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  And now it is up to the community to decide if they believe that. --Bjarki 00:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• n, k --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Article may fail "100-year test", but passes a rapist equivalent of the "Professor test". That was a very weird sentence. In any case, the article is WP:V, so I don't see any pressing need to delete it. Jkelly 00:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. fits within criteria of WP:Bio Garion96 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Garion96. Mo0[talk] 00:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Even without the rape case he would be notable as the only Icelander with a space science degree and his significant contributions to Iceland's space industry. That he has become notorious as well confirms his notability for me. I haven't looked in detail but there does not appear to be anything in the article that is not verifiable, and as long as we stick verifiable information in the public domain then I don't see any trouble with privacy laws. Thryduulf 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Duk 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — not every person, even those covered by a major news source, is relevant material for a biography on Wikipedia. But if it is someone who has been on the front page of major newspapers of their country repeatedly, then that seems to satisfy it for me. We have a huge article for Natalee Holloway, I don't see why this is much different on the whole, other than it is based in Iceland. --Fastfission 03:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any of the degree in its context in this low population country (first degrees in a country/subject combinationwould be notable always, don't know if this one is first), the ESA activity in respect of his country joining it or the significant crime and press coverage would be sufficient qualification. Jamesday 07:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf and Fastfission. His degree is instrumental here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• By all means, Keep!Rvalles 10:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf and Fastfission. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not every criminal, however many front pages they get, deserves a WP article. But per Thryduulf and Fastfission, this guy is notable for his work. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment I can't find any papers by him on web of science.Geni 09:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Stifle 13:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; seems notable as "rocket-scientist rapist". *Dan T.* 13:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Procedurally, I tend to dislike the fact that the article was apparently created on en: Wikipedia to bring about a change of venue in response to a challenge at is: Wikipedia.

I don't think having a Master's degree and essentially no publications makes one a noteworthy scholar. Throughout the discussion I have seen numerous references to his being the only or one of the only Icelanders to hold such a degree and no supporting citation or reference of this fact, so I think basing decisions on that fact is questionable. From what I have been able to find, he was a minor functionary in a government-sponsored technological and economic development agency who was working on proposals for cooperation with the ESA.

If the guy's notability derives from his work, as many claim above, can someone find something published about him prior to the rape scandal? So far, we just have (1) that he was recorded in the census and (2) a line-item in a government report that confirms he got a grant for his project.

I think the substance of the article betrays a lack of perspective on encyclopedic scope: Someone's house got egged? Some Q&A items were removed from a website? --Tabor 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Not verifiable. No English language sources. English language Wikipedia needs English sources. I couldn't find any English language sources on any English language search engine. (I'm going through the list of rapists and if the person is alive and: 1)no sources or 2)no evidence been put in jail for crime, I take them off the list. I try to fix article problem if practical instead of removal.)--FloNight 15:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  Hmmm.... I agree that this should be deleted, but that must be one of the least valid reasons to delete an article I've ever read. Zocky 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WAS 4.250 16:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There's nothing notable about his career or crime, at least the article and sources don't claim that he is. The smallness of a country doesn't make its citizens individually more notable - his B.Sc. degree is not notable by itself, even if it is in rocket science. The only other thing that could make him notable is the rape case. Since we are not in the business of listing everyone in the world who whas been sentenced for a crime, that doesn't make him notable either, even if it appeared on "front pages of Icelandic newspapers". Slovenia is nearly 10 times as big as Iceland is, and I have written for and appeared in newspapers and on national TV. My name was even used once in a crossword in Delo, our national newspaper. That alone doesn't make me notable. Zocky 16:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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.