Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1576 in Norway


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. Fram (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1576 in Norway

 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   __meco (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The only entries in these years are very minor events in the history of Norway. These pages all are created from the history of one city, and have no further contents. Pages are some seven months old and are mostly an empty shell. These pages are all responsible for 3 or 4 categories each which only contain this page (e.g. Category:1576 in Norway, Category:1570s in Norway, Category:Years of the 16th century in Norway and Category:1576 in Denmark) which is an impressive overhead for these contents. Pages are part fo a sparsely populated structure (so it's not like deleting those will creating gaps) and have no truly notable content. These five pages are equivalent to one paragraph in Porsgrunn, which is the logical place to have these entries. Fram (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also nominated:
 * 1653 in Norway
 * 1764 in Norway
 * 1807 in Norway
 * 1842 in Norway

Delete all. I'm very interested in chronology but these are going nowhere. The author would have been better creating articles covering events in Norway by longer timespans. BlackJack | talk page 14:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep all As creator I have so far not had many others contribute to this hierarchy, however, common sense dictates that eventually other editors will tend to these pages and their backdrop hierarchy. It is also in the nature of such listy articles that their expansion will be piecemeal and incremental often. This is also a matter of getting used to the existence of this hierarchy. With 2008 in Norway as the frontpiece this may very well begin to take place relatively shortly.

Whether these should be redirected to pages per decade or even century should be the sensible alternative option. As a rule, such articles should never be deleted. __meco (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This would mean that we would have an article "16th century in Norway", where the only entry was the first mention of the name of one city in one year. Perhaps it is better to hold of creating such an article until something really noteworthy can be said? Fram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep all Just because there at current is not listed more than one item in each year, does not mean that there was not more notable things that happened in the years. As Meco mentions, the Norwegian-related contributors have not really gotten into adding stuff to these articles—and I take full self critism for not being fully aware of the potential. If such an article would get deleted just becaue there is one listing in them, no such article would get kept, because each year-article would to begin with be created when one person found one event that happened that year. But then another editor (perhaps working in a completely different field) comes along and finds another piece of information, and sticks it into the chronology. This encyclopedia is being built step by step, and we have to allow it to be built in such a way. Instead of making deletion nominations not based on policy—I notice that the nominator fails to actually quote deletion policy in his nomination—I would like to hail Meco for his efforts in creating such a hiarchy of chronology. It is efforts like Meco and his kind that make the Internet not suck. Arsenikk (talk)  20:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the whole of the 16th century, there has been one entry for over six months now, containing one event of very minor importance. I don't mind an encyclopedia being built step by step, but there are limits to everything. As for deletion: I could have removed the one entry in these articles nominated as lacking any importance for the history of Norway, and then deleting the articles as CSD A3, no contents whatsoever. They fail WP:N completely. We don 't create empty shells in the hope that someday someone will come along and fill them. We wait with article creation until something noteworthy needs to be said. Similarly, we don't create low-level articles if there isn't enough (yet) to fill a high level article. We don 't have an article on the 16th century in Norway, but we have four categories all pointing to the fact that "The first mention of Porsgrunn by the writer Peder Claussøn Friis in his work Concerning the Kingdom of Norway" is done in this year, which creates overcategorisation (another reason for deletion mentioned in policy). And in the end, not every deletion nomination must be rooted in deletion policy, which doesn't cover all possibilities. If an article does not clearly fall into one of the usual deletion reasons, we have a discussion to define the consensus. A priori deciding that anything which doesn't directly reference the deletion policy must be kept is not what is stated in the deletion policy either. "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following...". My emphasis, of course. Fram (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The articles have now been expanded with multiple new entries. Turns out that there is no problem finding stuff that happens in each year, even through the Wikipedia search engine. Arsenikk (talk)  22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all, especially since there is a strong move towards unlinking stand-alone dates. Such articles which put historical events into context will be very useful.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all and devote the time & effort used here to adding content. I'm sure the norwegian WP will have information about some other events during these years. we're not talking about the early middle ages where there really may not be enough information for sustaining individual year articles. But 1842? DGG' (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn, thanks for expanding them, but please consider not creating articles until something worth adding is entered. They have some useful content now, but could just as well not have existed for the last six months. Fram (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2008 (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.