Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hvalerdrakten


 * 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   merge to Hvaler. KTC (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hvalerdrakten

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No interest beyond the local level. Geschichte (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 
 * Merge to Hvaler. Information is better placed there. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hvaler. Also, I question whether a garment in production since 1999 could be considered "the traditional costume" of the area. And the text desperately needs third-party references. 1292simon (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Actually, this is an interesting one. Folk dress, particularly in the Northern European countries, is quite a complex subject and I can't hope to understand it fully, but I would suggest that there's a case for not deleting this. But do we merge to Hvaler or to the main page for Norwegian folk costume, which is Bunad - note that bunad also specifically mentions "modern 20th-century folk costumes". I am leaning keep, because the bunad page is a good general overview of the country's folk costume and too much focus on the individual regions, etc, would dilute that page, or at least to add a link to Bunad when merging to Hvaler. However, coverage of national costume and folk dress is generally quite patchy on Wikipedia. The reason it appears to describe something very new is because the 1999 reference is in fact to the company that currently makes the costumes (the modern industry of making traditional costumes is described at Bunad). I will take a look at the article and see if I can improve it. Mabalu (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, that's annoying. www.bunadraadet.no/ (the Norwegian Council of Folk Costume site) is completely gone, kaput, down. I found a link to an e-book on folk costume but the downloadable PDF was hosted by - bunadreet.no. Emphasis on the "No" there. However, looking at general Norwegian folk costume sites, I can see that there is a strong bunad culture, with folk costumes still being designed today (but requiring approval of the Council to pass.) I've moved the company plug to the bottom, and considering the general content for Norwegian folk dress online - lots of sites, articles, essays, etc, and obviously something that is extremely meaningful to Norwegian identity - I hesitate to recommend anything without input from Norwegian users. I've made a couple copy edits to dilute the company plug. Mabalu (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Merge but not opposed to Keep if there's enough material. A search reveals that Hvalerdrakten is real enough, and there seems to be a desire to renew the trad. dress from time to time, maybe to keep the tradition alive. Therefore it's possible enough exists for an article. Meanwhile a section in Hvaler (or Bunad) would seem the best solution. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient cultural significance. (though a mergewould be acceptable also)  DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 31 December 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.