Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nordic countries in World War II


 * 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 delete. Opinions are evenly split but the killer argument is the absence of a clear overview that apparently cannot be written without OR. Noone has really disputed that each Nordic country had a different experience of the war, which again argues that an overview article is unfeasible. Given this it feels like the votesbtgat best reflect the production of a quality encyclopaedia are the delete ones. The outcome would be different if there was prospect of a well supported overview. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Nordic countries in World War II

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following an extensive debate on the talk page, I argue the category "Nordic countries" is not sufficiently notable to justify an article on WWII. The WP convention is to approach the wartime history by country - and this is a logical category to use. Otherwise, there is a danger of multiple content forks emerging (i.e. Balkans, Low Countries, Baltic States in WWII) besides the basic national articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Pings to users involved in the discussion:, , .—Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as nom . —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the military history of the region esp re WW2 has been the subject of several scholarly and popular books in English (and many more in the Scandinavian languages)--eg: 1) Bohme, Klaus-Richard. he Defense Policies of the Nordic Countries, 1918-1939 (1979); 2) Elting, John R. Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life Books 1981); 3) Haarr, Geirr. The Gathering Storm: Naval War in Northern Europe, September 1939 to April 1940 (US Naval Institute Press, 2013); 4) a scholarly article: Krosby, H. Peter. "The United States and the Nordic Countries, 1940-1945." Revue Internationale d'Histoire Militaire Ancienne (1982), Issue 53, pp 125-148; 5) Miller, James. The North Atlantic Front: Orkney, Shetland, Faroe and Iceland at War (2004); 6) Nissen, Henrik S. ed. Scandinavia during the Second World War (Nordic Series, number 9.) (University of Minnesota Press and Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. 1983)--published 25 years ago with scholars from six countries;  7) a scholarly survey: Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler and Daniel M. DuBois : vol 1 pp 208–21.-- plus the Nordic theatre gets well covered in overall surveys of WW2: 8) World War II: A Short History (Routledge 2015) by Michael J. Lyons = one full chapter (#6) out of 26 chapters. 9) half of chapter 3 in Max Hastings Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945 (2011); 10) all of ch 4 in World War II: A Compact History (1969, reprint 2017) by R. Ernest Dupuy.  Rjensen (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Haarr's book deals with Norway and the North Sea, not with Finland. 5) Miller's book deals with the islands in the North Atlantic plus Norway, not with Finland or Sweden. — Erik Jr. 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence now reads: "Given their strategic locations regarding Britain and Russia, the Nordic countries in World War II were the targets of German conquest or control, along with the nearby islands, while the British tried to stop them." This sets the stage for the article and assumes that the scope is logical and notable. But it is not at all clear if this statement is true. Soviet union tried to conquer Finland, not Hitler. Finland approached Germany for military support and joined Germany against Soviet union. Denmark was swiftly occupied, but Britain did not try to stop the german army, and Denmark was primarily a stepping stone to Norway. Germany did not try to occupy Iceland. Germany did not even occupy Svalbard. There were certainly spillovers between these countries, for instance Norwegian refugees and "police forces" in Sweden, refugees from Finland to Sweden during the Lapland war, German retreat from Lapland through Finnmark, a Norwegian squadron in Iceland etc. But there is no coherent, shared story there to justify a separate article. --— Erik Jr. 15:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik claims "there is no coherent, shared story." hed provides no RS to support his claim. That is not accepted by historians of the war who treat them together (see Lyons, Hastings, Dupuy) and by the governments themselves, of whom historian Nissen states: The governments of the four countries....have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture. They did so before the war; they did so during the war in so far as it was politically feasible; and they did so again after the war, when cooperation was institutionalized.  Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is the other way around. The article should present information from RS that justifies the article (beyond the obvious that they have shared borders and therefore some spillover is expected). I would add that presenting a general claim (such as "have repeatedly emphasized the existence of Nordic cooperation and a common Nordic culture") is not enough, the article should present specific information to support the claim ("show, don't tell"). This issue we pointed out in 2015 and the information is still missing. More importantly, the story that is still missing need to be a stronge one to justify departure from WP convention to tell WW2 history country by country. There are many regions or group of countries that are more natural or logical in the context of WW2, for instance Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Baltics, or Eastern Central Europe. --— Erik Jr. 00:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the main reason for the nomination. The "Nordic countries" is a geographic and political concept, but not sufficiently notable in the context of WW2. There are no strong reasons to depart from the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country: These countries do not have a shared history during WW2 except for Denmark and Norway that is already covered in Operation Weserübung.--— Erik Jr. 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is AFD, not RFC or RM, so let's follow WP:AFDFORMAT. I have for clarity and per WP:TPO struck "Support as nom", changed one "Oppose" to "Keep", and changed "Support delete" to "Delete". Sam Sailor 17:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Userfy - The topic, as a topic, of the Nordic or Scandinavian theater in WWII is notable (per sources presented above, and readily available in BEFORE - - and is probably a better grouping than a per-country basis as the actions of the various countries up north was not detached. However, the article quality here is lower than the per-country articles at the moment - hence the userfy !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't agree that the Nordic countries is a better grouping. As mentioned previously the history of the Nordic countries during WW2 is very different. Look at the opening statement ("Nordic" removed) that sets the stage for the article: ".... were the targets of German or Russia conquest or control...." This is true for all European countries, including Britain, and Poland in particular. It is true that the "the actions of the various countries up north was not detached", but it is also the case for virtually European countries in WW2. For instance: Allied troops were pulled out of Narvik because of German advance in France. Except for Weserübung developments in these countries were not particularly related. If you look closely at the early stages of the war most countries on the continent were more related, for instance German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia was related to the invasion of Poland, the German invasion of Belgium was related to the invasion of France. Life during the war was also quite different. During the final stages of the war, for instance the liberation of Bohemia was related to allied victory in Berlin, the liberation of Denmark was part of the German capitulation in NW Germany etc. So the point is that each Nordic country is a different story, in particular Finland with its unique story. Grouping the Nordics is much more artificial than similar groupings of countries on the continent. — Erik Jr. 15:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to add: Scandinavia and the Nordics are not the same. If we take Iceland and Finland out of the equation (and Orkeneys of course), the scope of the article makes more sense. — Erik Jr. 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz' indicate "not detached" as a criteria for grouping, this is a weak criteria as already mentioned as most European countries were related. And it is not clear what "actions of the various countries" means. Iceland (then part of Denmark) and Denmark did not do anything, they were very passive, so it is not clear how their actions should be judged. — Erik Jr. 15:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that a per country history is the best way to organize. It actually isn't the way most historians work (unless in a vary national setting). Countries themselves shift quite a bit - what was once independent gets subjugated or merged or split. Treating the Baltics, for instance, as we do in German occupation of the Baltic states during World War II is quite straightforward. The Baltics in WWII all faces the same fate and really had little variation between themselves (as temporary Buffer states between WWI and WWII - modern sensibilities for post-Soviet independence aside - frankly most history text prior to 1990 made little separation between them). Treating the Nordics as a group is not a "bad thing" - and it is done externally to Wikipedia. In terms of Wikipedia policy - if this is treated as a topic by scholars, so can we.Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Loads of info on WP is organized by country, and I agree that in many cases that is not the best way. But on WP we do both things, for instance we have articles on identifiable battles and operations (such as Weserübung that covers more than one country), and we have articles for countries during wars for instance Norway in World War II, the same information is found in separate articles. In the case of the Nordics, country is clearly be basic level of analysis because all countries were basically intact as sovereign states and public administration continued operation within existing borders even under occupation. Even if Sweden cooperated with Germany (transfer of troops for instance), the German occupants respected Swedish sovereignty (so 2 meters across the border Norwegians were basically safe). Germany treated Norway as one country in military and civilan affairs (for instanceReichskommissariat Norwegen), same for Denmark. So, given that individual Nordic countries stand out as the natural unit, there must be strong reasons to add yet another level. Events or plans that included more than one country are already covered in articles on Weserübung, Plan R 4, Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive etc., and it is not clear what is the value added of repeating information from these articles. --— Erik Jr. 18:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it a bad thing to treat the Nordics as a group in relation to WW2? Yes, perhaps. When we create an article about X on WP we also say that "X is something", so this article may give the impression WW2 in the Nordic area was one thing, but quite the opposite is true. So we should be careful not to impose a perspective on the material, for instance the phrase "Attention turned to the Nordic theater." was added to the article without reference. On the talkpage I have already commented on the sources cited as evidence. For instance Stenius etal (Stenius, H., Österberg, M. and Östling, J., eds. Nordic Narratives of the Second World War) is a collection of essays about WW2 seen from each of the Nordic countries, it is not about the Nordic countries as one Theatre of War. --— Erik Jr. 19:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War edited by Takala (also published in Norwegian, 1987), is also collection of research papers from each of the Nordic (except Iceland). This is also typical for much of the literature: The heading is "Nordic ...." or "Scandinavia ....", but the content is about individual countries. --— Erik Jr. 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * comment It is NOT true that  the WP convention to approach the wartime history country by country. We have Latin America during World War II, Pacific War Rjensen (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The Second World War was, by definition, global in scope. It is conventional to divide it into regions or theatres such as the Mediterranean or Eastern Front and these typically involve several countries.  The basis of the nomination is therefore false.  In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which are preferred by our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what we are discussing: Was the Nordic one theatre of war? — Erik Jr. 19:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As a minimum I think this article should temporarily be taken out of the mainspace, until most content issues are resolved. — Erik Jr. 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a Nordic region? Did it matter as a region in WW2? Erik  has based his argument on a false premise--that Wikipedia has a secret policy against regional articles re WW2. His claim is refuted by major Wiki articles such as Latin America during World War II and Pacific War and European Theatre of World War II and Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II.  All historians of the war cover the Norway campaign of 1940 --often giving it a whole chapter. Rightly so because the military planners in Britain and France as well as their political leaders such as Churchill and Reynaud treated the region as a whole, and had a coordinated action that involved simultaneous warfare involving Finland, Norway, Sweden and USSR (and also two Danish possessions) all in order to win an economic war that would ruin the Germany economy.  They had a region-wide perspective -- as historians have recognized. Butler in Grand Strategy says he deals with "Allied operations in Scandinavia" (p 92) -- Erik assumes the Allied planners of WW2  had separate plans for each country. No they had integrated plans for the entire region simultaneously.  As did Germany at the same time and the Germans invaded Denmark and Norway together on the same day not separately, while fighting off the British navy. Furthermore Berlin made diplomatic deals with USSR, Finland and Sweden to support their control of  Scandinavia. The Allied and German plans can not be handled country by country the way Erik demands because the war planners thought in terms of controlling the Nordic region not in separate plans for each separate nation.  It's the same with the European Theatre of World War II when Allied and German planners envisioned the region as a whole rather than a discrete set of separate units. It's well known how German delays in helping Italy in the Balkans in early 1941 delayed its invasion of Russia.  Regions matter more than national boundaries in winning a world war. Indeed, Germany and USSR abolished Baltics/Poland/Czechoslovakia as independent countries, created brand new countries, and redrew national boundaries to suit their larger war plans.   Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rjensen: Please stop the mindereading, stop making assumptions about what I think and assume. Focus on facts and issues, please, this discussion is not about me. — Erik Jr. 23:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Erik assumes the Allied planners of WW2 had separate plans for each country." Where did I present this assumption? Please stop misquoting me. --— Erik Jr. 18:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rjensen wrote:"Is there a Nordic region?" Again, you are misrepresenting the arguments I gave. Nobody question the idea of a Nordic region (although only after WW2 the Nordic cooperation was formally established) and geographical proximity is obvious. So can you please stop using unfair rhetorical devices? --— Erik Jr. 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let us take a step back and forget the details for a moment. I think the key question is: What is the value added of having one more (intermediate) geographical level of analysis? If this level of analysis did not function as a unit, the additional level of analysis will merely be an aggregation of information from articles about countries. So the question if or to what degree were the Nordics a unit during WW2. The answer I would say is a «no» with regard to actual events (as been demonstranted clearly in the discussion above), except perhaps in allied, Soviet and German plans. The Nordics did not act as a unit, they were not invaded as one, they were not liberated as one etc., and the countries/sovereign states remained intact. So the shared history for the whole region exists at best only as plans made by the major powers. The danger of having a separate article is giving the impression that the region was quite unified when it is was not. So the reason for such an article that remains is a way to organize information. The key question: Is it useful to organize or aggregate information at one more level? Perhaps, but I am not convinced: Overviews are found in several articles already with links to articles with details. So the article is redundant and we risk fragmenting content. --— Erik Jr. 00:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * it's a puzzling comment about "giving an impression" Wikipedia's job is to tell what happened and that is done here, no matter what prior impressions people had.  The Allies and the Germans both made plans for the region- and they ACTED on the region in accord with their plans--which were all based on Nordic region as a unit.  The Allies failed militarily in 1940 and the Germans won, and that victory shaped the entire war years.  The Nordics in fact acted as a unit before the war in setting up a neutrality front--they were quite unified. The ww2 experience gave them a strong shared memory that still persists.  They did not go separate ways before, during or after the war, according to Nissen.  Furthermore historians writing the overall history of WW2 typically them as a unit.   I wonder if Erik admits that has abandoned his original claim that Wikipedia has a  policy against regional articles in ww2. Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again: Please stop focusing on persons, the discussion is not about what I must "admit". And you are not quoting me correctly: I said there is a convention, I never claimed that there is (a secret) "policy". Comparison to South America is also unfair as that is a continent, and far from the battlefields.
 * "...historians writing the overall history of WW2 typically them as a unit..." Some historians perhaps, but to present this as typical is inaccurate. "The ww2 experience gave them a strong shared memory that still persists." - this is also quite inaccurate, Norway and Denmark yes, as occupied countries, Norway and Sweden yes because of the long porous border; Finland and Denmark had completely different experiences during the war, Denmark was one of the places to spend the war. --— Erik Jr. 18:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: A quick search on Google Books verges clearly onto the side that there is notability in considering the Nordics/Scandinavia as a separate geographical/regional unit during WW2. For example, "Hitler's Scandinavian Legacy" (2013), "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" (2011), "Scandinavia and the Great Powers 1890-1940" (2002), "The Nordic Countries in the Early Cold War, 1944-51" (2011) and "Crime and Control in Scandinavia During the Second World War" (1989). It doesn't really matter what wikipedians think is artificial or if the countries had totally different experiences during the war; instead notability is conveyed from what RS discuss about. Manelolo (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Likewise: "The experiences of the First World War, in which the High Seas Fleet had been condemned to inactivity in the dead North Sea, led to early ideas of securing the Nordic region for the battle against British supply lines." (German S-Boats in Action in the Second World War, 2007); "The five Nordic countries emerged from World War II in widely differing ..." (The Nordic balance since the war, 2008); "World War II and its aftermath was of course the event that shaped Nordic Cold War security policy." (Nordic Defense in the Post Cold War Era, 1995); "THE Nordic area has often seemed to be the quiet corner of Europe. This perception harks back to the era between the Napoleonic War and World War II, when Europe was the cockpit of the world and Central Europe and the Balkans provided the military and diplomatic battlegrounds for the great powers — with the Nordic states only rarely being involved, let alone being of importance." (The Nordic region, changing perspectives in international relations, 1990)
 * I mean, at this stage it is starting to be quite irrefutable that Nordic/Scandinavia is a notable entity by itself in World War II talk. Manelolo (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources you mention has already been discussed as mostly irrelevant to the issue. For instance "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" are merely a collection of essays about WW2 in these countries, not about the Nordic region as a unit. --— Erik Jr. 18:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if that argument stands, a few sources above discuss the Nordics/Scandinavia as a clear unit already. And this is only with a very quick search scraping the surface. "... of securing the Nordic region for the battle against British ..." and "THE Nordic area has often seemed to be the quiet corner of Europe." Manelolo (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if some sources mention the Nordics as an entity, the article (current version) does not show how it was an entity. There were no facts on the ground that support the claim: Finland was fighting wars with the Soviet union and there was nothing particularly Nordic about that war. The attempt to tell a story about the Nordics in WW2 is largley artificial. For instance the opening sentence: "The Nordic countries in World War II, given their strategic locations in relation to Britain, Germany and Russia, were the targets of German or Russia conquest or control." This statement does not justify the scope of the article at all, the statement is largley empty or meaningless, because this statement is true for virtually all countries affected by the war or the statement is so inaccurate that it is not informative. For instance it is misleading to say that Finland had a strategic location in relation to Britain, and Sweden did not have a strategic location although some strategic resources. Iceland was not the target of German conquest, Germany did not even occupy Svalbard. In fact Falkenhorst admitted that the German navy was overstretched in April 1940 and was not able to control all relevant ports in Norway leaving Åndalsnes, Namsos, Harstad, Tromsø and Bodø open to allied landing. Iceland was of course of strategic interest to Germany, but if the german navy could not control the Norwegian coast how could they capture Iceland? In the current version the article hardly provides any information beyond what is found in articles on each country. The additional information the article claims to provide is misleading or inaccurate. --— Erik Jr. 14:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * (was keep) It is clearly a distinct theatre of conflict, passes notability, and is relevant. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the claim that the Nordics was "a distinct theatre of conflict" is not supported. The major powers made plans, but the actual events do not support this claim. — Erik Jr. 18:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My country was invaded by the British due to its Strategic importance, and you are saying what? Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also the Nordic countries are very well defined, what exactly is the problem? Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * My country was invaded by Germany, along with a long list of other European countries. The Nordic countries are well defined, but this definition was institutionalized several years after the war. But the discussion is not about the definition of an area, the question is if it can be regarded as a unit during WW2 (for instance as one theater of war). As a region of Europe we can of course use the Nordic as a way to summarize unrelated information. Except some vague statements the article is currently merely a summary of information from other articles. --— Erik Jr. 13:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @Erik Jr. - The Nordic countries had shared rulers and treaties and cultural ties as early as 800AD, some 1200 years ago. The entire region was united during the 15th century under the Kalmar Union, a 120 year period where Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Greenland and Iceland were all ruled by the same 'federal' government with a shared monarch. The fact a new union was established after WWII in no way means this was the first union, the nordic region has been well defined since the early medieval period. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote a researcher from Finland, although this is widely held in academica: As archaeological and historical sources testify, the present-day Nordic region was gradually interwoven into a tight network of economical, social, cultural, and political exchange ever since the Early Middle Ages. The most long-lasting political constellation was the Kalmar Union (1397–1523) that united Denmark (including present-day Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland) and Sweden (including the southwestern parts of present-day Finland). In a more recent era, common historical structures and institutions such as a uniform Lutheran state-church, the highly centralized state, the agrarian, pragmatic character of “Nordic Enlightenment,” and the relative freedom and early political participation of the land-owning peasants have been emphasized as elements that have left their strong imprint on Nordic people’s everyday experiences and mentalities (See e.g. GÖTZ 2003a, p. 328–331; STENIUS 2003, p. 21–23; HILSON 2008, p. 11–17)


 * We agree that the region is relatively well defined, something that happened 500 years ago does not change the key question: Was this one well defined theater of war? If the answer is no, the article is merely an agglomeration of information already contained in other articles - that can be OK (even if redundant), but then we should not give the impression that there is one unifying story. The framing of the article is artifical and the things that do in fact connected these countries during WW2 are hardly mentioned. --— Erik Jr. 14:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The main issue: To use the Nordic region as level of analysis to summarize existing information is OK (although redundant and largely artificial in my opinion). There has been some recent changes of the article to make the region look more "united" than it really was (the article should not make the impression that the Nordic region was one theatre of war, because it was not). Except for a mere summary of events, the only substantive justifications for the article are (1) the major powers viewed the region as one and made plans accordingly, so these plans can be a topic within the article (this is still not well covered in the article) and (2) events in separate countries were connected through cooperation or spillover (this is still missing from the article, except for the winter war) for instance: transport of German troops through Sweden, evacuation of jews to safety in Sweden, Norwegian exiles in Sweden and preparation for liberation, the Lapland war and the scorching of Finnmark, etc. In short: The article now does well on things that are redundant, while the things that could make it a relevant article is missing. Instead of trying to build a case about a shared history, the introduction should be honest and specific about the events that did actually connect these countries. — Erik Jr. 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The main issue is if there is notability to an article per WP:GNG. Nothing more, nothing less. Manelolo (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Erik keeps saying that there REALLY was not a theatre of war that can be called Nordic or Scandinavian. That's his private opinion--he has given zero RS that agree, He ignores the general histories that give a chapter to this theater. He ignores RS that explicitly name it for example: . 2) Already in 1939 the term was used shown here;  3) Germans used it: "n the far north the capitulation of Finland had rendered untentable the advanced German positions in the Scandinavian theater of operations" [ Von Luttichau - 1960]; 4) military historians use it: Earl F. Ziemke, The German Northern Theater of Operations, 1940-1945 (Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1960); 5) An excellent advanced guide to the historiography: "Chapter 13: Scandinavian Campaigns.  The countries of North Europe were important to the great powers in the war because of their geostrategic location."   Rjensen (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, again the point is to show that it was something, not the "prove" the negative. There are no facts to support the claim the Nordic area was one Theater (warfare): No fighting occurred across borders within the Nordic area and all borders were intact. If we compare this to the events in central europe the differnce is striking: France, Poland and Czechoslovakia were broken up, fighting rolled back and forth across continental Europe irrespective of boundaries. Finland's borders changed and fighting took place over a wide area across the border, but this was a war with the Soviet union and eventually became part of the eastern front, there was nothing particularly Nordic about Finland's wars with the Soviet, the theater of war was in fact the eastern front. --— Erik Jr. 13:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re Operation Stratford: This was british plan as part of wider plan to take control of the Scandinavian penninsula, where the real target was Kiruna and the iron ore railway (no:Operation Avonmouth) and support for Finland was largely a pretext. Rjensen again makes impolite remarks that I ignore things. I am of course perfectly aware of plans developed by germans and allies, and I have repeatedly mentioned that there was perhaps an idea of a Scandinavian theater in these plans. But the article gives the impression that the military events made the area into a single theater for war. If you want to keep the article you must rewrite the article to reflect these facts according to sources. — Erik Jr. 14:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree, no one is obligated to improve the article and possible content inaccuracies are not a deletion reason. You literally say in that comment that the British had a wider plan to take control of the region, and it's already been established that war plans were made by both sides that considered the region as a whole, and this is discussed widely in academia in terms of the "nordic region" and occasionally also the roughly equivalent "scandinavian region", not only in the text, but also in the titles of books and scholarly research. It is clear that the Nordic region is defined, was considered a theatre of war (in the war-plans) and has been treated as a supranational region by subsequent academics, therefore this article is valid and meets WP:GNG. The actual content in the article currently is not relevant, tat is a cleanup/content issue. The concept of the article is sound, so there is no valid reason for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, there were plans that involved several countries in the area, we dont disagree in that regard. "...the British had a wider plan to take control of the region" - no, Britain did not plan to control the entire region, but there were plans to take control of Kiruna and the iron railway, with support for Finland as a pretext (Operation Avonmouth). Operation Stratford was a planned operation to support Avonmouth, a preemptive action in case Germany tried to invade Scandinavia. — Erik Jr. 14:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * To add: On Norwegian WP there is a gentlemen's agreement that those who vote to keep an article of insufficient quality are also (morally) obliged to improve it to an acceptable level, this is a version of TNT. Several contributors in 2015 noted the issues with this article, only in 2018 there has been some improvments, but a lot is still missing. --— Erik Jr. 15:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Apply TNT i.e. start again. The subject is clearly an important one, but this is a horrid article, where most of the content has disappeared into more detailed articles.  Furthermore, the experience of different countries is so different that it is going to require an academic author to know sufficient to be able to provide a thorough overview.  This is something the present article singularly fails to do.  Denmark and Norway were conquered; Finland has wars with USSR, sometimes with the support of Germany.  Sweden stayed neutral.  The Baltic Republics were overrun by Germany then USSR.  Atlantic island possessions were occupied by UK (or USA) to keep the Germans out.  This is all highly disparate, so that producing a synthesis that is not a series of separate articles on each country is not a job for an amateur, which is what many WP editors are.  I will include myself in that, as this branch of history is not my special subject.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will add that the issues about which Erik Jr. is writing are issues of detail, which do not go to the principle of the issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree that it is possible to write an acceptable article about WW2 in the Nordics, but is difficult to make an overview or synthesis because of the differences between these countries. But the article should add something, if not there is no reason to keep in my opinion. So perhaps TNT or move to a userpage until it is substantially improved. — Erik Jr. 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I mostly agree. I applied some TNT, leaving only the lead section. I am not adverse to a better article being built from this, inclusive of selective restoration from the deleted content. But again, this is a content issue and not a reason for deletion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some users were trying to fix it (me and Rjensen, a keep vote) while another just TNT'd it (Prince of Thieves, also a keep vote). Therefore, I'm not convinced this article is of any use to anybody. Kill it. We have the topic covered in other articles. In 2018 we do not need half-assed stubby 'overview' articles. Srnec (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * POV does not trump guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - TNT situation. The article is not worth saving; I think the topic, structured properly, would pass muster for inclusion, but the amorphous title of this makes this a duplication of existing content elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete (Without prejudice to recreation). I am not convinced any of the existing or former content is usable, being entirely country specific content with no intergration or overview. I have no objections to deletion according to TNT. However this should not stand as a barrier to later recreation by anyone who can actually do the subject justice. This is because I still think the topic itself is valid. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - while there is a valid TNT argument (moreso after 75% of the article was recently deleted), my vote is not per TNT. This is inherently WP:SYNTH.  Norway was occupied by Germany, Sweden was neutral, and Finland warred with the Soviets more than the Germans.  There might be a case for an article specifically on the historiography, but even the references such as "Nordic Narratives of the Second World War" generally say each have "differing narratives". power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep While Scandinavia was not a distinct theater, there are plenty of references here that refer to the Nordic area/Scandinavia as a noteworthy distinct location for military activity - for instance: Bayer, James A. "The Scandinavian Flank As History, 1939-1940" (1984): Vehvilainen, Olli. "Scandinavian Campaigns." in A Companion to World War II (2012) ed. by Thomas W. Zeiler : vol 1 pp 208–21.: Nissen, Henrik S. ed. Scandinavia during the Second World War (Nordic Series, number 9.)Elting, John R. Battles for Scandinavia (Time-Life Books 1981). Given this, these seem to substantiate it as having its own distinct character. Also considering how other countries got involved, in their neighbour's situations (in particular Sweden in Finland and Norway), given the close relations between Nordic countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per good sourcing. It is clearly a distinct theatre of conflict. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Several reliable sources discuss the Nordic region in the context of WW2 and all Nordic countries were involved in the war. If the Nordic region, according to sources, can and should be regarded as one distinct theatre of war, then it should be relatively straightforward to write a summary based on scholarly sources. So far, this account for a Nordic theatre of war is missing from the article, accordingly this justification for the topic is also missing. — Erik Jr. 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way? How was it a distinct theater? --— Erik Jr. 08:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per power~enwiki. Even after the needed TNT, this argument persists.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Explain.BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A combination of synthesized and original research rather than actual sourcing covering the collective topic as a single significant notable subject. Erik Jr lays it out well too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How?BabbaQ (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression notability was established, and the rationale for deletion is based mainly on the validity of an overview article which supplies no overview. And partly on whether it is worth trying at all. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability as something distinct (a distinct theater of war) is not established (or still disputed). But I guess it is easier to reach consensus on lack of validity or value of a supposed overview article that does not provide overview. Per now the article does not add value, if nobody is able or willing to fix it then delete. — Erik Jr. 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would err on the side of not being able to create a valid overview without doing way to much OR, since there only a half dozen books on the subject. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2018 (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.