Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Norwegian Project

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. Nakon 01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Norwegian Project

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

Should be merged into Norway. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the page for such discussion, article's talk page is the appropriate place. Here is strictly for discussing articles whose deletion seemed controversial. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - basically the only claim to notability is "Norway's first foreign aid project". Nothing else significant. If it was something significant, then "Norwegian foreign aid" would be notable (and a redirect), which I do not quite see. It seems to me there is little to merge to Norway (that's just trivia), but I would not oppose it. Tigraan (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Hegvald's link below constitutes enough coverage in my view, but a change of name is probably needed. Tigraan (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plsease address your double entry votes. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not see the problem? I struck my previous 'delete' !vote when commenting. I do not retract the comment that follows, which was made before knowing that there was GNG material out there. Tigraan (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Norway. Keep- The article seemed to be of encyclopedic importance and notable. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a scholarly book on the project (referenced int he article and reviewed in American Anthropologist 72 (1970), p. 669 ff). It could possibly be merged somewhere, but the idea of merging this to Norway is really quite ridiculous. If it had been the Indo-British Project, would somebody have suggested merging it to United Kingdom? --Hegvald (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes I would have suggested it be merged. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2015 (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.