Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huld
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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 keep. —Doug Bell talk 00:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Huld
Delete - Insignificant charactrer in an epic saga doesn't need separate article Frater Xyzzy 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It may look insignificant after Frater Xyzzy's mass deletion of information on the page before he nominated it for deletion. I understand that characters from Norse mythology may be insignificant for some, but this character is notable for being involved in the murder of two legendary Swedish kings. Moreover, she is also notable for being an early attestation of the folklore that sleep paralysis was caused by witchcraft. The origin of this dispute was a debate on whether three lines merited a separate section for references, which could be seen on his talkpage before he deleted the discussion.--Berig 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Huld as per Berig. I feel this AfD is a form of harassment by Frater Xyzzy, who has been serial tagging articles and then being uncivil and antagonistic when asked to explain. Furthermore, the editor stated that he was going to submit this entry for deletion as a form of retaliation. - WeniWidiWiki 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. My initial take when I saw the article was that it should simply be deleted. Rather than prod or AfD it, I tried to point out that every article needs a references section. All I got in return was abuse. Thus I went ahead and followed my initial instinct. Next time I won't even try to note how the article could be improved. If I find another 3 line article on a subject of minor importance with no visable sources, I'll simply nom it. Frater Xyzzy 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- You insisted that the article lacked references, and when I pointed out that it named its source, you started arguing that a three-line article absoluted needed a separate section for references. As to who was abusive everyone can follow the discussion you deleted.--Berig 00:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all. My initial take when I saw the article was that it should simply be deleted. Rather than prod or AfD it, I tried to point out that every article needs a references section. All I got in return was abuse. Thus I went ahead and followed my initial instinct. Next time I won't even try to note how the article could be improved. If I find another 3 line article on a subject of minor importance with no visable sources, I'll simply nom it. Frater Xyzzy 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, insignificant is subjective. Article conforms to wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Mallanox 03:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep, as long as we keep Vörnir separate. Both may reasonably be merged into larger articles (Völva, Jotun) though. dab (𒁳) 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep but the lengthy chunk of quoted text should be moved from the article to Wikisource. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, even if I don't support the systematic use of quotations in the original language (especially for prose passages; it's often useful for skaldic verses though). Sigo 17:31, 10 December 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.
