Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of farms in Oppland


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lists of farms in Oppland
I have nominated the following four articles for deletion: as they appear to be an indiscriminate collection of information (which Wikipedia is not) and possibly including copies of primary sources. Stifle (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Does not include copies of primary sources&mdash;a quick review of the link in articles will reveal this to the reviewer. Williamborg 02:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * List of farms in Etnedal
 * List of farms in Gjøvik
 * List of farms in Lesja
 * List of farms in Gausdal


 * Delete, all are mere indiscriminate collections of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;useful gazetteer data for historical and genealogical research Williamborg 02:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic OSU80 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep—As far as I know, listing farms in Norway is somewhat analogous to listing villages in England: they have significant historical importance and have given some their surnames (again like villages in England). Ardric47 04:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Retain It might have some interest for some, and we have plenty of space. Although i really think that it's just a list and not very useful. NorwegianMarcus 05:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the ideology of Inclusionism. __meco 05:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all are simple collections of lists of information that is neither informative nor encyclopediac. Even Inclusionism seems aimed at knowledge rather than a mass of information. Peripitus 08:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Kurtber 10:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete useless listcruft. -- E ivindt@c 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, transwiki to Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a repository for original data. Dr Zak 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The lists are public information in Norway. It is not copyvio in any sense. The numbers in front of the names are gardsnumber which is a term used in norway to uniquely identify a farm within a local area. In addition to gardsumber there are bruksnummer in use. Those numbers refers to smaller areas or farms within a larger area. The lists are not temporal in nature as the numbering has been in place for a very long time. The numbering are also in use on detail maps, whats known as økonomisk kartverk. Such lists has a direct analogy in lists of road numbers in an area.


 * The lists are useful for those who writes articles about local history as it is easy to check if the farm has been given a description or not. In Norway it is very common to have the farms described in collective works about a municipality. Where I come from we have Gardssoge for Sør-Aurdal (Farm history of Sør-Aurdal) and similar books are available for most of the municipalities.


 * Norwegian farms are very often very old. It is not uncommon that farms are noted in historic sources like Snorre. Still, it is not wise to describe every farm in Wikipedia. There are also the situation where people wants to use a description of an old farm as a reason for writing genealogical articles about their own family. This could create a lot of unwanted vanity articles, yet this isn't a very good argument for deletion of those lists.


 * It seems like the Norwegians casting votes are familiar with this as most of them votes for keep.


 * — John Erling Blad (no) 14:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikisource might be a more suitable home for entries like these. What I'm saying isn't that this is useless, just that this isn't the best place for it. Dr Zak 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Indeed. I would be quite happy with a transwiki to Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep – In my view these lists are not so much collections of information as collections of invitations to write articles about the farms listed. (Articles with information about a farm's history, political importance, etc., can hardly be called vanity, although articles about the  families who lived on the farm may be.) I am pretty sure that the parallel articles in the Norwegian wikipedias will be kept (and expanded).  If the lists get deleted from English Wikipedia, maybe a link to the Norwegian articles can still be kept? --Verdlanco\talk  15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep – One man's unencyclopedic listcruft is another man's useful information. We're watching the evolution of the enclopedia in real time. Anything that generates this much interest must have some merit. UmptanumRedux 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with the respective municipalities. These are not simply lists of farms, even though that is what "gård" means in Norwegian. The list is of "gårdsnummer" which is a subdivision of the municipality and such lists may be useful in describing the location of where people live. Even at places where there is no farming any longer, the "gårdsnummer" remain. I don't think these lists are deserving of a separate article, but they are relevant when it comes to coverage of the municipalities' geography. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; UmptanmunRedux sums up my viewpoints nicely. &mdash; Pladask 15:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP is not a database. I can imagene that in future, when the tools to maintain WP will be better such information may considered. Not so today. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who sees the lovely (and useful) irony of the comment, “WP is not a database.”? If it is anything, Wikipedia is MOST CERTAINLY a database... The Wiki software is a server-side script, with the content stored on a server in a relational database. That’s precisely what makes Wikipedia so useful and powerful…
 * This insight is most instructive… Folks are hung up thinking about Wikipedia as if it were a classical encyclopedia… It is most certainly NOT a classical encyclopedia… once we agree on that we can think about what it actually is!
 * Our basis for deciding what should be allowed as a list is bizarre. We tell the reader what a list in not (Wikipedia is not). Decision processes based on negativity are always weak and open to debate.
 * It is time for a logical and systematic statement of what warrants being placed on a list. Here are my quick thoughts on a systematic set to rules for a list based on the characteristics of an encyclopedia:
 * … “comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge” …“an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject”… Since the use of the encyclopedia is research, the primary purpose of a list is to facilitate research. THEREFORE A LIST may cover any branch of knowledge, but must be arguably relevant (i.e., useful for some form of research):
 * “General encyclopedias often contain … as well as embedded dictionaries and gazetteers”… a gazetteer is a “geographical dictionary, an important reference for information about places and place-names”… THEREFORE A LIST may cover gazetteer information if it provides important reference information about places and place-names. (Note: this does raise a question whether we shouldn’t create a sister Wiki project… a Wikigazetter.)
 * “Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain.” THEREFORE A LIST should convey important accumulated knowledge for an identifiable subject domain.
 * … “systematic method of organization is essential to making an encyclopedia usable as a work of reference.” THEREFORE A LIST should logically enter into the Wiki list structure as a head set or subset… the proposor of a new list has the responsibility for proposing a logical structure under which a list falls in the current scheme of lists.
 * “As modern multimedia and the information age have evolved, they have had an ever-increasing effect on the collection, verification, summation, and presentation of information of all kinds.”… THEREFORE A LIST may be proposed if it is a logical collection or summation of information… the logic must be clear to the casual reader.
 * We need to get beyond… well I think so… well I don’t think so… well, I still think so… well I still don’t think so… Anyone have comments/thoughts on my thoughts on how to set up systematic criteria so our discussion is more rational? UmptanumRedux 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Added a discussion on criteria to the What Wikipedia is not talk page.UmptanumRedux 17:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; I agree with UmptanmunRedux and seconds what agtfjott wrote. Noorse 12:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 12:25, 13 May 2006 (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.