Talk:Damstredet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

from Vfd:

Current article is 13 words long. It's apparently a street of old houses in Oslo. Unless this can substantially be expanded (or at leasdt shown to be notable), I don't really see the point of it here. Grutness|hello? 05:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. Keep it and ask for it to be expanded. Dr Zen 06:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Notability not established. BTW, where is the vfd tag? DCEdwards1966 07:02, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm getting annoyed at these damned editing problems. You put a tag on something,and then it vanishes from the article and the edit history. I should have checked - it took me three goes to start this vfd page (which I got to from the tag!) Grutness|hello?
  • This article is of no real value in its original form, and can be deleted. But Damstredet is in fact an interesting little street, and I notice it is mentioned in Yahoo Travel as one 'thing to do in Oslo' [1]. I've added some more information, including the Henrik Wergeland connection. Egil
  • It looks like some life has been stirred into the article by the listing here (that often happens :) - I think there's enough there now to start being swayed in favour of a "keep" Grutness|hello? 09:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Then you should never have listed it! Being a stub simply isn't a criterion for deletion.Dr Zen 01:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • But being a pointless stub is a valid criterion. ping 08:44, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I listed for the reasons I gave. It was a substub - 13 words saying it was a street of old houses. Is Wikipedia to be a repository for 13-word articles for the 10,000,000 un-noteworthy streets of old houses on the planet? As I said in my original message, it needed one of two things done to it: expansion or deletion. I am glad it has been expanded, but if it was not, I would have had no qualms about its deletion. Grutness|hello? 09:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Being a substub is not a reason for exclusion.Dr Zen 22:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Being a substub about a completely un-noteworthy street should be. There was no way of saying that this was not a vanity article about someone's home street. Grutness|hello? 04:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The simplest of google searches would reveal that it's an Oslo tourist attraction.Dr Zen 06:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If it's an Oslo tourist attraction then I would expect it to be mentioned on the Oslo page. If it's worth an article, I would have expected an article to have been written. It obviously wasn't a big enough tourist attraction to have been dealt with on the Oslo page, so it certainly wasn't a big enough attraction for its own page. As the fact that there was a substub there made clear. The vfd page is meant to clear up such points. Preferably in a manner where the articles are discussed, and not whether you think a Wikipedian has done the right thing by even sugggesting a page should be looked at. If you want to complain about someone's actions, then do it on their user talk page, not here. Grutness|hello? 22:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • No, the debate is public, not personal. If you thought it should have been included in the Oslo article, you could merge it and redirect without requiring it to be deleted. That you say "if it's an Oslo tourist attraction..." implies that you didn't bother finding out, and simply asked for it to be deleted because you personally have not heard of it. I want to discourage editors from doing that, not just you, so why would I bring it up on your talkpage and not here? The VfD is supposed to be for editors to ask whether articles should be deleted and to form a consensus. Consensus involves discussion. If you don't want your listings discussed, don't make them. If the article really does require deleting, someone who doesn't mind discussion will do the nominating at some point. We're not short of would-be deleters. Dr Zen 01:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • If you thought it should have been included in the Oslo article, you could merge it - I didn't know whether it should have been, or whether it should have just been deleted. It looked like it should have been deleted. That's why I listed it here, which is the correct place to list it under those circumstances. Look, I'm as happy to allow tiny articles here as the next guy - I've voted "KeeP' on enough vfd candidates in my time. But I don't see the point of keeping an article which basically says "Damstredet is a street". I had no idea whether it was worth keeping as part of an article or as a separate article, but the evidence I suggested that it was not. I am very glad to see that I was wrong. Next time, please be more constructive by pointing out why an article should be kept, rather than being destructive by suggesting that I was wrong to list it here in the first place. Grutness|hello? 02:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I would have listed the original article for VfD. Stubs are alright, but if they don't establish notablility then they should be deleted. DCEdwards1966 21:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Marginal keep though I'm not totally convinced that this deserves an article on its own. Perhaps it can be merged with the main article on Oslo? 23skidoo 23:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, borderline notability needs expansion. Megan1967 00:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's helpful. Wyss 01:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Cleduc 09:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it in its current form. It looks like it can be expanded to become more encyclopedic. --Deathphoenix 15:31, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason whatsoever for the deletion of this article. Martg76 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks good enough to keep. DS 16:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

end moved discussion