Deletion of Fjordman

Comment: The article is indeed about a blogger, not about a blog. Thus  should be applied rather than . The main criterion of  is that the person has been covered in independent |reliable secondary sources. However, blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, see . As far as I can see, all sources given in the article are links to blogs. Thus notability is not established
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:WEB||WP:BIO||WP:RS||WP:SPS)

Comment: It doesn't seem that there are |reliable sources confirming this pseudonymous blogger's notability. "Internet buzz" doesn't amount to much, and in this case is probably created merely by the controversial nature of his opinions on Islam
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Quite possibly not.  Then again, newspapers have reliable and independent fact checking and have reporters who aren't pseudonymous, so that people actually have some assurance that they're dealing with the same person.  These are among the reasons why newspapers are considered "reliable sources" per , and blogs are not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: fails , no independent publications covering this anonymous blogger. Note: allies are likely to post appeals on their blogs, so expect a lot of unregistered or newly-registered users in this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)