Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Denmark. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Denmark}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Denmark}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

Contents

[edit] Denmark

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] $candalou$

Non existant phenomenon or extremely specialized jet set phenomenon. Shows no hits on Danish, Swedish or Norwegian google and no relevant hits in English Google. Author seems ignorant as to phenomenons meaning. Celcius 15:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, probably made up or non-notable, can't find anything on this (i.e. fails verifiability). Any Scandinavians (other than the nominator) care to comment? --IByte 16:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified; this vote changes to Abstain upon verification. android79 16:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per android. Alf 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No Opinion. I created the page since someone added it wrongly to the Scandalous song by Prince page. (MistaTee 20:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete, also can't verify. Uttaddmb 17:02, 27 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – NSR (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Felix of Denmark

Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. Please realize that in addition, this boy is a younger son, thus not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the baby in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or redirect to parent's page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this person is 4th in line to the Danish throne - it is befitting of a comprehensive encyclopedia to have an entry on him
  • Keep notable. Dunc|☺ 20:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to father's page. And, it seems to me that there is very light and commonplace information in this article now. Arrigo 21:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think monarchy should be abolished, but not on Wikipedia. In other words: In my eyes this prince is not inherently notable, but my POV is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's fourth, or soon to be fifth in line to the Danish throne, which is still an important position. Lady Louise Windsor is eighth in line to the British throne, yet her article is still up. Morhange 00:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable article about someone of wider interest than thousands of people we have articles about. Osomec 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, echoing sentiments above. Dottore So 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Royal family members are inherently notable. 23skidoo 03:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep members of the royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as with his brother. Caerwine 22:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gets lots of press in Denmark. Thue | talk 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep john k 16:28, 22 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – NSR (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Nikolai of Denmark

Unencyclopedic. Thin of noteworthiness. Has done nothing prominent, represents nothing important. All details can be put into his father's article. Just the fact that he was born a royal, does not suffice. As this boy is going to have a cousin who is the heir presumptive, thus Nikolai is not presumed to ever succeed to the Danish throne (barring unexpected events). He is the heir of his father, thus deserves article a bit better than his own younger brother, but IMO does not yet deserve it. I have earlier stated some thumb-rule criteria of royal babies having an own article, such as if the baby in question left a country in a succession crisis when dying. This boy could expect an own article when in his teens and gaining individual attention from media. Not yet. Otherwise, all the pertinent details of the child in question fit into articles of parent(s), and an own article is undeserved. For encyclopedia, it is fragmenting to make these separate articles. 217.140.193.123 09:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or redirect to parent's page. Trollderella 19:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - someone who is third in line to the Danish throne should be kept. There is no discussion that someone third in line to the British throne should be deleted. Minor royals should not be deleted just because a Republican is anti-royal.
  • Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to father's page. And, it seems to me that there is very light and commonplace information in this article now. Arrigo 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think monarchy should be abolished, but not on Wikipedia. In other words: In my eyes this prince is not inherently notable, but my POV is irrelevant in an encyclopedia. Punkmorten 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As third, soon to be fourth in line for the Danish throne, he is still an important figure. Likewise, if Lady Louise Windsor's article is kept, and she's eighth in line to the throne, then Nikolai, who is much closer, should also be kept. Morhange 00:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is third in line to the throne of Denmark. There was an article on the third in line to the British throne when he was a minor. Probably for other countries, too. Tree&Leaf 00:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable article about someone of wider interest than thousands of people we have articles about. Osomec 00:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, echoing sentiments above. Dottore So 01:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Members of royal families are inherently notable, particularly those close to the crown. 23skidoo 03:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep members of the royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gets lots of press in Denmark. Thue | talk 16:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Grandchild of a reigning monarch is sufficiently notable. Caerwine 22:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep john k 16:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Grandchild of a monarch, third in line to the throne now, fourth soon, people much lower in the line of succession to the British Throne are kept, so should this be. prsgoddess187 06:16, 22 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master i computer-mediated communication

Does not seem notable. I don't think we should have an article for every Master's program ever. Also, unless "i" is a Danish preposition, the title itself is misspelled. Delete. Joel7687 21:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Dottore So 02:33, 17 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 06:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gestir

This apprently was previously nominated, but someone removed the tag and deleted the VfD page, which seems quite improper. The original article was speedied as a substub with hardly any info. It was on VfU, not fairing too well, when someone wrote the current article, which is certainly not speedy material. As for this band, they have no recordings, but it's been put forth that they pass WP:MUSIC criterion #2. This is somewhat suspect, as playing a few gigs outside of the island you live on is hardly a substantial tour. For example, they played a festival in Copenhagen ("festival" meaning they were just one of many bands). Their best claim to notability is winning a Faroe Islands contest, and as of now I can't tell how great of an accomplishment that is (the Faroe Islands having a population less than that of Eau Claire, Wisconsin). But I'd say it's their only real shot at articleworthiness. gestir band faroe got me 29 google hits.-R. fiend 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, obviously big in the Faroe Islands. Kappa 16:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the article having read on VfU that the subject was clearly notable and that the subject would be kept as long as someone wrote a proper article, which I did. To me this sort of subject has done enough, the model for bands in Scandanvian country isn't the same as that in America, to which WP:MUSIC guidelines are slanted. Pcb21| Pete 16:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 1 person in the VfU said they were clearly notable, and didn't exactly give any rationale for that statement. Others (including me) said that creation of an article with significant content wouldn't be speedied, but I didn't see anyone saying such an article would clearly be a keeper either. -R. fiend 16:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My town is bigger than the Faroe Islands, and simply being "big" here certainly doesn't qualify a band for being in an encyclopedia. Fortunately, we have a nice guidelines to help us decide on bands, WP:MUSIC. If they DO meet the criteria there, by all means the article should make this clear, and I'll reconsider my vote. Just to put things in perspective, these guys don't even have a record yet. Article says they're signed to a label which I can't find any information on (other than their website, which makes them sound like a vanity label for music from that particular location). Anyway, I see no assertion of meeting the music criteria in the article, so I vote Delete for now. Friday (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea that the music guideline is slanted. But help us out here, what would make this band notable? There are tons of bands with more than one record already out who aren't "important" enough to be included. Why are these guys special? Friday (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Biggest band in their country.Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. -Splash 17:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well apart from the fact that the article makes clear it meets criteria 2. Not that WP:MUSIC is an arbiter on these matters anyway.... Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Just more non-notable Danish-Autonomous-Protectorate-based band vanity.... JDoorjam 18:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It isn't vanity. I wrote the article and have nothing to do with the band. Administrator, please disregard the above vote. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I know a lot of admins would wish they could (at least with delete votes), but they can't. Any vote by a non-anonymous or sock puppet-user counts. / Peter Isotalo 02:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no record yet. Zoe 19:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, it is normal in Scandanvian countries to be around much longer than American bands before having a record. I repeat, having a record is not the correct barometer to measure inclusion-worthiness by for this entry. Pcb21| Pete 22:49, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While this band has some claims to notability, they fail to meet WP:Music. However, they will become eligible if their album or a single from it reaches the top 100 of a national chart or they complete a national tour or they release two albums n a major label or significant independent label. It wouldn't surprise me if these guys meet the crriteria within a reasonable period. Their website looks professional. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless established to meet WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 00:31, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My municipality has a population bigger than the Faroe Islands, but I wouldn't venture to write articles about local bands. A lot about the Faroe Islands is notable, but this is not. / Peter Isotalo 02:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Being the biggest band in the Faroe islands just isn't notable enough. They haven't had anything released. They are mentioned in Music of the Faroe Islands along with a whole clutch of bands. This is just like having the house band down at the local pub mentioned. Local bands without any outside recognition should not be mentioned. What about a page for Fleetwood Back? A Fleetwood Mac tribute band from Scarborough which performs at Murray's? - Hahnchen 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Radiant. android79 03:04, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Nandesuka 13:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zoe, i.a. Dottore So 22:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, anti-Faroeism must cease and cease now. Failing keep, at least a redirect to music of the Faroe Islands would be nice. Proto t c 10:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Whereas I chose to delete this article. I am in favour of expanding music of the Faroe Islands to take into account the local music scene. - Hahnchen 15:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:Music. Hamster Sandwich 21:37, 16 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Denmark_146c.html"