Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grønlid School


 * 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)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Grønlid School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an article about a remote Norwegian one-room schoolhouse— none of the references appear to include in-depth discussion of the subject by reliable independent secondary sources. I don't see anything in the article's content to explain why the school is notable, and the refs don't convince me of this either. KDS4444 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is not quite a one-room schoolhouse, but nearly so, and is a Norwegian historic site of obvious importance, including for German occupation during World War II.  This is a helluva lot more historic and interesting than all 52 one-room schoolhouses in New York State having Wikipedia articles (several of which I created).  I'd much rather visit this one.  See Category:One-room schoolhouses for Wikipedia's lopsided coverage of one-room schoolhouses (all or nearly all in the U.S.).  It does not appear to be listed on any specific historic register, but the controversy about its preservation makes it all the more newsworthy, as happens with many U.S. historic sites that are found eligible for listing but are not listed.  I added the article to WikiProject Norway and to WikiProject Historic sites;  hopefully it can get some more attention and be included into appropriate corresponding list-article(s) of historic sites in Norway, if we have them yet. -- do  ncr  am  02:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It certainly meets the GNG, and I feel that the content here is definitely relevant and of obvious importance. That article itself isn't formatted that well, but that is no reason for a deletion - it isn't unreadable or unsalvageable by any stretch of the imagination. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , could you give some of the sources that make you say that the school meets the GNG? I'm having difficulty finding sources, but that's possibly only because of language issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure! This is a site from the Cultrual Encyclopaedia. This is a tertiary source, but is does show that others are interested. This source (Kleiva, Ivar (1973). Gulen in gammal and new time: gards- and ættesoga. Volume 1 . Gulen. p. 95. ISBN 8271010204) also covers relevant material, and so does this source (Fjørtoft, Jan Egil: Tyske kystfort i Norge. Tromsdalen 1982.). TheMagikCow (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I added coordinates to the article from the Norwegian language Wikipedia article on the school and clarified the wording about the relationship of the school to three hamlets it served (it is equidistant to the three, as can be seen in Google maps).  I added wikilinks and did some other editing.  Of the three, only Rutledal currently has an article; Brosvik and Rutletangane currently are redlinks.  Students would have had to come from Rutletangane partway by boat, besides the fact that walking was no doubt uphill in the snow both ways for all three. :) -- do  ncr  am  22:47, 1 January 2017 (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.