Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bladet Tromsø


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bladet Tromsø

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An editor on the IRC channel was expressing concern that this article didn't meet the notability guidelines, and I share his concern. AfD tiem.  Flutter shy  !xmcuvg2MH 20:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. dkonstantinos (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Editor in question here; quoting from what I said on the talk page: "The major claim to notability seems entirely wrapped up in the Lindberg case, which already has a writeup (and a stronger writeup) at Odd F. Lindberg. There seems no secondary coverage of Bladet Tromsø specifically, which is required by my reading of WP:ORG. If that is so, then it seems to me that the best course of action is to delete and direct editing work to the other page." Maybe set up a redirect to Odd F. Lindberg? dkonstantinos (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - For me, this is no doubt that this is an article that should be kept. I know nothing about the Lindberg case, but in my eyes it is notable without it. "Second" paper in Tromsø, after Nordlys, so you'll be busy deleting newspapers in Norway if this one isn't notable. Just because you can't find any English-language sources does not mean that the subject isn't notable. Even though this is clear to me, I'll do some research and read some notability guidelines before making up my mind. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If your context as an actual Norwegian makes you sure it's notable and you can pull in some Norwegian-language sources, by all means please do. I'd obviously rather see it tricked out with sources than deleted. dkonstantinos (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (as an "actual Norwegian"...), added encyclopedic source. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep included in Store Norske Leksikon, a general-purpose paper encyclopedia, thus meets the gold standard for inclusion. And definitively notable (as a "actual Norwegian"). Arsenikk (talk)  21:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can a 114-year-old newspaper with a circulation of 110,000 not be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:58, 21 January 2012 (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.