Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway
A similar article on the effect of the earthquake on Hong Kong was nominated for deletion, on the ground that Hong Kong was not directly affected. Since Norway was not directly affected either, the two articles share substantial similarities. This nomination was done to facilitate a better discussion, and possibly, similar actions may be taken. &mdash; Instantnood 12:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake articles are not adequate. This article provides further details. &mdash; Instantnood 12:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. What the purpose of this vote? Smells like a WP:POINT violation to me. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, not wether or not simmilar aritcles exist. Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong is extremely short compared to this article. I'm a little supriced Germany or Sweden doesn't have such articles as they lost a lot of people, but all that's beside the point. Each article are dealth with seperately unless a general overall consensus exist to do otherwise (like with Pokemon stubs). And nominating articles you think should be kept is not the way to build a consensus IMHO. --Sherool 14:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together, although the outcome can still be different. How much similarities do they share is to be determined by the community. &mdash; Instantnood 14:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 07:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Keep. Precisely as I pointed out in, and as per Sherool, this does appear to be a clear-cut case of WP:POINT. Also, instantnood has been the only person I know who actually nominates articles/categories to be kept, and this is not the first time he did this .--Huaiwei 14:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note also, that instantnood added a notification of this nomination in the Norway-related topics notice board, in what appears to be an attempt in garnering local support for this article, and hence hoping there will be a trickle-down effect to the article he is fighting to keep.--Huaiwei 14:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's just sort of etiquette to have nominations be notified on the relevant notice boards. &mdash; Instantnood 15:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Information would be of an encyclopedic nature and comes from multiple, verifiable sources. Does need to be worked on to update accuracy.  Also, perhaps the creation of an article about the effect that this earthquake had on non-directly affected locales could be created and articles such as this one merged into it?  Just a thought.  will381796 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Instantnood is, rather innapropriately trying to make a point, but no matter: Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fair amount of detail specific to Norway. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect either way nominator needs to tarred and feathered for WP:POINT, you'd think repeated occurrences of things like this would end up in front of the ArbCom SchmuckyTheCat 17:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many of the reasons mentioned by other Wikipedians in the other nomination are applicable to this article as well, and that's the reason why I nominate this article, to facilitate a better discussion. Both articles are devolved from the main articles on the earthquake, and both are about the effect on a country not directly affected. Contents in both articles can be merged into the other articles for the earthquake. &mdash; Instantnood 18:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * blah blah blah. SchmuckyTheCat 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: most of the content is generic, and the Norwegian specific details are non encyclopedic. GhePeU 10:08, 9 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.