Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

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The result was Withdrawn‎. Sources presented showing the parent topic is notable and this can be turned into an article on that with this as a subsection. This satisfies my notability concerns. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norsk ordbok (Riksmål)

[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)

I could not find anything about this dictionary, but it is admittedly in Norwegian and my source searching may have been impaired by that. There are a decent amount of non-sigcov hits for a dictionary which makes me suspect there is something I am unable to find, particularly due to the language thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Norway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Then why did you nominate it to be deleted instead of asking a Norwegian speaker? Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who would I have asked? This article has sat untouched for twenty years. Afd is the only appreciable way to actually get eyes on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. C F A 💬 03:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Are these all referring to the same dictionary? This article seems to be on the illustrated version. The title is common but I don't think they're all the same work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. CFA, your search is unfortunately a bit misguided. Every single one of your sources are undoubtedly about Det Norske Akademis ordbok (NAOB). Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Well I'm not going to be of much help then. I wouldn't know where to look for anything else. C F A 💬 14:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way you should be commended for your effort Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's one review for 1993 edition: https://tidsskrift.dk/lexn/article/download/19107/16740 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're halfway there. I'm still confused as to the scope of this page because I can't figure out if it's referring to a series of Riksmål dictionaries or just a 1993 edition. Are there sources for later editions of this same work? Because that would be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 1993 edition Norsk illustrert ordbok was a variant of the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok, which I found significant coverage for. The dictionary constitutes a bridge between bokmål, which is an official written form of Norwegian, and riksmål which is an unofficial written form maintained by a private organization - and was issued to replace the older riksmål dictionary which was going out of style in the 1990s. I would rather write an article about the 1991 dictionary Store norske ordbok and merge the successors into that one. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to this proposal, seems ideal to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Interesting proposal at the end of this discussion but I'm not sure how that development impacts what should happen with THIS article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 24 August 2024 (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.