Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krigsseilerregisteret

Krigsseilerregisteret

Krigsseilerregisteret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Website lacks

• Keep I see no reason for the article to be deleted. It has notability because that site is helpful to those who conduct research. For your information, many people who sailed on Norwegian ships during WWII were not Norwegians, and some also emigrated to other countries. The war sailors register has both a Norwegian and an English edition. I am convinced that there are users of English Wikipedia that need information that the website Krigsseilerregisteret exists. So why delete the article? User:Carsten R D (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2017 (CEST)
• In Norway, the register has had national interest, see the coverage of the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, a link from the article.(User talk:Carsten R D) 16:01, 7 June 2017 (CEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Arkivet (Kristiansand), the institution responsible for the project, and redirect there. --Hegvald (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why merge the article with Arkivet (Kristiansand) when it provides supplementary information? A merge will mean multiple issues, which is also not good according to Wikipedia policy? Leave the article Krigsseilerregisteret as it is now. What is the reason for all the efforts to get the article deleted? User:Carsten R D talk 12:46, 8 June 2017 (CEST)

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 23:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge seems like a sensible solution. Carsten R D, which "multiple issues" do you see with a merge? The important information wlll still be available to all English-language readers, and the info will be embedded in a relevant article about the parent organization, which offers more to our readers, not less.
  Fram (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Do not merge and do not delete: Krigsseilerregisteret and the Arkivet (Kristiansand) have a common address, but different tasks. Arkivet is about human rights in Norway and museum of the cruelty that took place there during WWII, while the registry is about crews and ships sailing with great risk. Arkivet is, of course, the owner of the register, but on Wikipedia the difference should be emphasized. The best way to distinguish this two institutions is in two separate articles. Why all this hesitation to leave it as it is, and why do you see mergeing as sthe best solution, Fram? Why not separate the two articles which refer to each other, like now? What's the big deal? User:Carsten R D (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2017 (CEST)

• Carsten R D, even the article creator may enter only one bolded !vote, please. See
  talk) 14:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to Arkivet (Kristiansand); anything useful can be picked up from the article history. A merge is not necessary, as the article does not cite 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I would not want to dissent from a merge to Arkivet (Kristiansand); I do not speak Norwegian, but it looks like "war-sail-register", which sounds like a notable project. Arkivet means the archive, but it appears this is housing the Gestapo archive. To deal in one place with Norwegians under occupation and those at sea for the duration of the war seems not unreasonable, but if they are different, they should perhaps stay separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2017 (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.