Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kråkevisa

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kråkevisa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep/Procedural Keep and improve. This nomination is illegitimate per WP:DEL-REASON, WP:BEFORE, and WP:NEXIST. Note that this folk song has several different titles, and I was able to find numerous Google Books results for most of them as the song is a known item of Norwegian folklore. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I added a few things from no-Wiki. Ingratis (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a couple more refs, in Norwegian. Ingratis (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy keep All those votes should be ignored. When something comes to AfD it represents the investment of time to do three times as much editing at least as what is required to create an article, and it opens people up to very negative reactions so it is also emotionally difficult. We need to consider the merit of the topic. We should absolutely never allow procedural keeps. I would be interested in seeing the above editor explain what these alleged found sources are, and explain how they meet the rublic of being reliable, 3rd party indepdent sources that provide significant indepth coverage. Not all mentions of something are enough to show notability. We need to actually consider this on its merits, not dismiss an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Especially when the articles were allow to sit without any sources for 14 years. We need to improve Wikipedia, and speedy closing nomination like this will not do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The votes that you think should be ignored cited four different Wikipedia guidelines that were violated by the nomination, so you are effectively saying that those guidelines should be ignored too. That is an argument to be had elsewhere. And if you think such a discussion is "emotionally difficult", nobody forced you into it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of right now, I count four references in the article: there is absolutely no "unsourced" argument to be made. If an article sits without sources for a number of years, that's sad, but there are ways besides deletion to fix this (as has been demonstrated here and elsewhere). jp×g 23:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.