Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications in 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 no consensus. Looks like quality issues here, cleaning up the article and improving it might just avoid this AfD altogether. - Mailer Diablo 14:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communications in Norway

Communications in Norway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article consists of unsourced and outdated statistics. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --PeR 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment all of the articles in this series are basically text dumps of the country report in the CIA World Factbook. Even Communications in the United_States, which you would expect to be one of the better-developed given the large proportion of American editors, doesn't represent much improvement over the CIA World Factbook. I think this is because the subject area is so poorly defined that no one really knows how to improve them. Granted, AfD is not for cleanup, but I can't really bring myself to vote keep without a good answer to the question: What exactly is supposed to be covered by pages in this series and what sources can be used to improve them? cab 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a statistics dump. Not CIA World "Fact"book either. Punkmorten 08:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Random facts. the_undertow ^talk 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice towards recreation as a completely new article. WP:NOT a CIA World Factbook mirror; people who want this information presented in that format can go there. Heather 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- It is part of a series of Communication articles- and there is massive scope for expansion. The topic itself is notable. Thunderwing 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you offer some suggestions for the said expansion --- what exactly is this article supposed to be about? (It's not clear to me at all from reading Communication, for example). What scholars have written about the topic of Communications in Norway? Do you have an example of a well-developed Communications by country article (the best I've seen so far is Communications in Afghanistan, and even that feels like it might be better off being merged somewhere). Cheers, cab 23:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It can be an overview article on TV, radio, postal system etc in Norway. I would be interested to see what Capitalistroadster can do- if he significantly imporves the article, editors may wish to reconsider their !vote Thunderwing 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as article on notable topic. It can easily be expanded talking about the various sectors radio and television etc. If you give me a couple of days, I will see what I can do. Capitalistroadster 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - There's a "Communications in (country x)" article for just about every country on earth. Some are expanded well, like Communications in India, and some need work, like Communications in Canada. There's no reason to single this particular country's communications article (unless somebody has a bias against Scandinavians?). --Oakshade 21:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Throwing around accusations of "bias" because someone brings an AfD against one article in a series and not others seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. Sometimes, when almost all members of a whole series of articles are low-quality, editors will bring a test case against one of them, rather than put tens or hundreds of articles up in a single mass-nomination. Nothing wrong with that. And IMO, the presence and structure of these CIA factbook data dumps has inhibited development of the articles, so I can see why some people would want to delete and start over (though I'm reserving judgement for now). You can see how many times most of these have been edited since 2002; worse, virtually all of the edits are housekeeping or wikilinking, or at best, addition of snippets from newspaper articles; not many fundamental expansions or restructurings. The "Demographics by country" series is another good example of this; Wikipedia has some very good articles about individual ethnic minority groups, religions, population trends, etc. in countries all over the world, but the Demographics by country articles themselves don't go anywhere; no one's exactly sure where they can put in new information, or how to rewrite and cut out the junk in order to make them into real articles with prose and citations. Even Communications in India obviously suffers from this problem. cab 07:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The reason i singled out this article as a test case is that it has been tagged for cleanup for over two years, without getting any attention. In my opinion, that demonstrates how problematic these articles are. If this nomination is successful, I do intend to nominate all articles in the series that are of equally poor quality. No data will be lost, since the CIA factbook is probably updated more regularly than these articles anyway. I should perhaps also clarify that I am not opposed to starting a new article with this exact title. (A redlink is an invitation to write a good stub!) Of course, if someone would find the time and energy to clean up the series (maybe put the statistics in an infobox?) that's a much better solution than deletion. --PeR 07:39, 15 May 2007 (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.