Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mormonism in Norway

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. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism in Norway

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

Mostly unsourced, exteremely minor presence in Norway. Merge to Religion in Norway. Jeffro77 (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two sources provided, one is a broken link, and the other is WP:SPS, no reliable sources provided to establish notability. Not to mention the Mormon church has a propensity to only publish stuff that makes themselves look much better than they actually are, notoriously inflate the number of members, by including members inactive for decades, etc. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge. No doubts about the article have room for improvements, but, I can't see War wizard's arguing for counting inactive members being relevant here, as most Christian movements in Norway, Church of Norway included, does the same. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the possibility of inflating numbers, the extraordinarily small presence of Mormons in Norway (less than 0.1%) is not notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're avoiding my argument which was that the sources provided do not assert notability. The mention about Mormon church inflating numbers was just an aside to point out that even if the current membership in Norway warranted an article (which it does not), that the actual membership is likely much lower than that, and would be even more difficult to establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a part of the overall coverage of Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Europe, an unquestionably notable subject; it's not helpful to remove one article in the group. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the articles in those categories includes articles about missionaries in various countries, not articles about Mormonism in [country]. The category, including its subcategories only includes a small number of articles about Mormonism in particular countries.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable subject. Everyking (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any basis for your assertion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that the history of different religious groups in different countries are notable and should have individual articles, providing there is enough to say about the subject. Why did you nominate this article for deletion if you only want to merge it? You realize that if we merge it we have to redirect it, right? Everyking (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to suggest merging instead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it merged. Answer the question. Everyking (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons well articulated by War wizard90 above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That user voted to delete, but you said initially that you wanted to merge it. Well, we can't do both, so which do you favor? Everyking (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would just like to point out that AfD outcomes are determined by policy based points, and not overall !votes. So far every !vote for keep has said nothing except that it is "notable" without giving any supporting policy based evidence that it passes WP:GNG. If your going to !vote keep, please show how this meets notability requirements, rather than just saying it does, or comparing it to WP:OTHERSTUFF (which is not a recommended argument for AfD). -War wizard90 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added 3 reliable sources in a "Further reading" section. The publications suggest that the topic is notable. JimRenge (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JimRenge. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 12 February 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.