Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegians


 * 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Norwegians

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Really, what is the point of this? It's just a random collection of persons who happen to Norwegian, or of Norwegian descent (!). The only criteria for inclusion are (1) being Norwegian and (2) being "notable", which could mean any person with a Wikipedia article! What can the list possibly be used for; other than to brag and show off "our" (I'm Norwegian) accomplishments? Punkmorten (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the many (170+) lists in the Category:Lists of people by nationality. Are you going to nominate all the others too?  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, just this one, because it's useless beyond repair. Punkmorten (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason for deletion here - it is in parallel with well over a hundred established articles, which is far beyond "otherstuffexists" clearly. Collect (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough discriminating information here to make this more than a recital of blue-links. I agree that the list should not include persons who were born and raised elsewhere.  It's possible that an editor has added persons "of Norwegian descent", but those can easily be taken off (Walter Mondale would be a perfect example of someone not to include on a "list of Norwegians").  From what I can tell, the intent is to confine the list to persons who have lived in Norway.  Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but after making sure the content of the classification is retained and reflected in categories. This is what categories are for. Maintaining lists independent of the categories duplicates data and leads to incomplete and out-of-date lists.  I think lists are only appropriate when there is some sort of content beyond what can be communicated in a category, as in a taxonomy list of a biological family or genus.  Cazort (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all 170 This should be covered by a category, not a list.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe, since we can't do both, we should have a list and not a category. Wait a second, I think we can do both.  I understand that some people prefer to look for articles by going through categories, and I think that's great.  Others, myself included, don't really find that form of navigation to be very efficient or helpful.  Generally, the most insulting description that one can give to a list is that it doesn't provide any more information than a category would.  In this case, the list goes beyond the accomplishment of telling us that the persons listed are "Norwegian".  Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think in order for keeping a list to be justified, there needs to be a compelling reason that people would want to view the information in the form in which it is presented, and there needs to be information that could not be covered in categories. While this list is divided neatly into sub-headings that contains useful and relevant information (i.e. Literature, Music, etc.), this is all easily handled by sub-categories, i.e. Category::Norwegian_painters, Category::Norwegian_writers, etc.  Cazort (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See CLN - categories should not just replace lists (although I'm not arguing that this list is particularly useful, just commenting that "use a category" is not a reason for deletion). Greenman (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm changing my recommendation to no opinion. Cazort (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong and rapid Keep Of course it should be a category. It can also be a list. A list can indicate more than a category can, and thids one fdoes it very well. The only real advantage of categories is that they are made automatically--that's a real advantage, but it doesn't negate other ways of doing things. I do not see why someone can say that this particular one is "useless beyond repair", for no list is beyond repair. though  it is possible for a list to be so useless as not worth repairing--which does not the least apply here. I don't see that it needs much repair, even. And I certainly do not know how someone can say "we can't do both" when policy is very clear to the exact contrary. DGG (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A Category seems to be the best place for this list, otherwise every country in the world would need a similar list! Knobbly (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, anyone who clicks on Category:Lists of people by nationality or Category:Norwegian people will find this list.  Some of us like to cut right to the chase.  Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * and if every country in the world had a similar list where would that leave us? Would adding the the handful that don't have such lists destroy Wikipedia as we know it? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, I would consider making such lists a very high priority. Much more than remaking some other sorts of problem articles we've been dealing with involving countries and diplomatic missions, which though valuable have a more limited interest than articles about people. DGG (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong and Speedy Keep Lists like this are part of what makes Wikipedia useful and worthwhile. The point is that someone might use this list to find the names of famous Norwegians. It's a discrete and perfectly logical category for a list, and reflects considerable effort. - Vartanza (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. What is this obsession with deleting perfectly good list articles?! Fences and windows (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The current name of the list is admittedly a bit awkward sounding ("List of Norwegians", where readers may anticipate seeing 4,666,666 names), but its aim & purpose would of course be to list "all sufficiently notable Norwegians (and only them)" – and as such it happens to be a useful compilation. Also, as has been noted above, there are apparently 170+ similar lists for most other terrestial nations, and it would be moderately presumptuous if we went to the UN and demanded that these other 170 nations ought to have their lists of national noteworthies forcefully deleted. Slavatrudu (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (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.