Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norwegian farm culture


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Norwegian farm culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Whilst I believe the creator had all good intentions, this article is highly problematic: (1) It has few or no sources. (2) Its scientific quality is low. It is not an objective presentation, and it contains original research. (3) Nothing has been improved since 2011, when maintenance tags were inserted. Otherwise, its equivalent in the Norwegian Bokmål & Riksmål Wikipedia, Det gamle bondesamfunnet, was deleted in March 2012 based on the same reasons. No More 18 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea of the scholarly accuracy of this article and cannot read any Scandinavian language, but bondekultur seems to be an encyclopaedic topic judging by the number of times it is referenced in the Norwegian, Swedish, and the other Norwegian Wikipedias. As I say, I can't read anything, and a lot of it does not have preview anyway, but Norsk bondekultur gets a lot of book hits.  Some of these seem to be about the topic. eg, or have a significant section on it, eg .  Provisionally, I would favour stubbing the article to remove dubious material, but leaving it in existence for someone who knows the sources to expand.  Spinning  Spark  16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: What makes the article difficult to attack (in addition to foreigners' lack of in-depth knowledge) is that each fact is more or less correct; it is the constellation, i.e. how facts are put together, that makes it incorrect. Furthermore, when reading the text, one will soon recognise the style of an essay. ('The culture was rich, more so in the way that each valley had their distinct varieties and modifications. Outsider were often impressed, and said so.) This revision from 2011 might highlight what I find especially problematic. By the way, bondekultur means farmer culture. No More 18 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 *  Delete  as original research. Furthermore, the article combines two subjects that may be (or are already) sufficiently covered by the articles History of Norway and Norwegian romantic nationalism. No More 18 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate vote by nominator. Your deletion nomination is your vote. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete as the article is based upon OR and private theories about long lines in history. And because it uses old and biased ideas from the national romanticism in order to interpret iron age history. Be --Orland (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated above I am also quite certain the text has been written with the very best of intentions and by several people very proud of where they come from. Norway has a long and rich cultural heritage stemming from farms, farmers and farmworkers, but I guess this is the case for all developed countries, we were all once farmers. As stated above the article does contain facts, but I agree that the way they are put together is the authors' personal opinion. If possible I would have loved to keep a very shortened version, but at present there is nothing in this article to keep. Three references are from 1915, 1948 and 1795, i.e. the references is not notable and does not support the article, they are also very much out of date. The forth reference is accessible from Norwegian ip-adresses. I have accessed this source which is an antology of articles: Continuity and change: aspects of contemporary Norway (1993) Scandinavian University Press isbn 8200211169, and  searched it electronically. This book is in english and does not contain the word bondekultur. The text contains the word farmer 4 times. I have looked at the article mentioned as source and it is not an article about Norwegian farmer's culture. Some facts are correct in this article, but the way they are connected is clearly the authors personal opinions. It is possible the word bondekultur merits an article as it is widely used, but bondekultur does not always refer to the same issues, it sometimes refer to handicraft traditions, farmers food customs, legal/social issues concerning farmers, nationalistic 19th century notions, and so on. What the word bondekultur encompasses depends on the context and this article is now a mixture of unsourced farmer related historical issues that do not connect to a lexical unity.  -- ツツDyveldi ☯ prattle  ✉ post  11:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: To complicate it further, there were regional variations in mentality and character of farmers. I interpret the (original) romantic nationalist movement as a mainly Eastern Norwegian phenomenon. No More 18 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * An Amused Merge with Norwegian romantic nationalism  -


 * As the originator of this contested article way back in the dark ages of Wikipedia, I've enjoyed the speculation on the motivation for the original article and would like thank you for the moments of humor.


 * Sadly, this was probably considered a reasonably sourced article when it was originated back in 2005 (unlike many articles back then it actually had references). It survived for 9 years with the marginal scholarship exhibited. The article has less merit than it should have - and is guilty of more closely approaching plagiarism than it would if written today - that you didn't identify the sources only means "Google translate" is not yet perfect. There is no doubt that if it survives, it requires work.


 * User:Dyveldi is correct - bondekultur is a topic with regional significance. As a measure of that, since I originally "set if free" the article has grown by a factor of 2.5X. For a non-topic, Norske bondekultur apparently has something of a regional following. The relative interest, as evidenced by editing and growth, might be used to argue for retention.


 * I am further amused that the Norwegian romantic nationalism article is cited as a covering the material. Although that article is arguably a logical place where this topic should be captured, that article currently misses the mark. Worse the article of Norwegian romantic nationalism has not one single reference (it also originated in the Wikipedia "dark ages").


 * I was yet further intrigued and amused by the standard of searching Google Books to understand the content of a book used as a reference. I normally use Google Books to identify books I need to buy or perhaps borrow via Interlibrary Loan - it is rare that sufficient content can be found on Google Books to reach a decision. Copyright protection gets in the way.


 * There are arguments against merger, of course - the material in this article far exceeds that in the Norwegian romantic nationalism article. That poses a challenge. The Wikipedia process has a unique skill for reducing valuable content while amplifying strange subtopics in main articles. As an example, I present the fjord article: note that the main topics under "Fjord features and variations" are "Coral reefs" and "Skerries." Nowhere in that section (or the broader article) can one find any of the information on fjord characteristics that is routinely found in most "paper encyclopedia" articles. There is a risk that pulling this article into "Norwegian romantic nationalism" will similarly distort it. But I'd suggest a merger is worth trying.


 * I rarely edit Wikipedia any more - that part of life that pays the bills demands my time - but if you decide to merge the articles I'll try to spend some time updating the material and smoothing out the various Norwegian contributions.


 * Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem I face with this AfD is that once there was an understanding in Norway that there was such a thing as a special Norwegian farm culture, unique for Norway. It was created in the political environment of the 19th century, where there was a political need to somehow show historical evidence that Norwegians were a separate nation, not just a province in Scandinavia. Simplified, historians and archaeologists created a near fictional story of the nation's history which was focused on underlining the differences to Swedes and Danes. So the dilemma arises: this article is a presentation of the farm culture seen from the eyes a hundred and fifty years ago. Today this would be regarded fiction and does not belong in an encyclopedia. What is interesting is the historiographical question: why was it seen as necessary to create this vision and how was it carried out? It was such a eloquent ruse that even today the inaccuracies it produced are being served to children. That is a notable topic, but it belongs in another article. Arsenikk (talk)  19:33, 30 April 2014 (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.