Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thirty Years' War and Norway


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thirty Years&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Seems like one in a series of articles, but no other country has a "Thirty Years' War and ..." article devoted to it. And I question whether Norway should have. They were very little involved in the war. The first and third paragraph of this article don't describe Norway at all. The second says that Denmark-Norway participated, but this was a venture of the Danish king, and the fighting did not reach Norway. Finally, the fourth paragraph mostly describes the Torstenson War, which has its own article, and if anything should be linked to from the main Thirty Years' War article. To sum up, this is an unneeded article which hardly even describes what it pretends to. Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Torstenson War per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is there to merge? Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Norway did not exist as a country at the time—it was a mere province in Denmark–Norway. I'm not saying that an decent-length article on Denmark–Norway in the Thirty Years' War is not appropriate (if sufficient sources can be found), but why is this single province (which did not participate as an entity in the war) interesting? Arsenikk (talk)  19:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Firstly, I think nominator should take the trouble to notify the creator of this article, as is standard procedure. Secondly, contentions that this should be original research appear to be considerably lacking in assuming good faith, as the article has a considerable source list even though footnotes have not been applied. As for giving my opinion I shall await the statement from Williamborg. __meco (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (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.