- 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. The addition of sources was helpful in the consensus for a keep. TLA (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Battle of Vänersborg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find the sources to show this meets WP:N, or find a possible merge target. Boleyn ( talk) 09:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 09:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I have somewhat expanded the article, adding at least a basic source. I have books which ought to have more detail. I'll investigate in a couple of days, once I'm done with the Christmas celebrations. / Julle ( talk) 12:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added a couple of references (most importantly from the book Vänersborgs historia : Tiden till 1838 by Carl-Fredrik Corin, the museum website is more of a passing mention) and expanded the article somewhat. / Julle ( talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Not too happy with this. A few words in a newspaper in 1645 is not great, and I've always been somewhat skeptical about using museums as sources. I'll assume the book is good, since I have no access to it myself. I'd be inclined to !vote to merge to
Torstenson War for now, but that is also in a rather abysmal state I'm not really feeling that either. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-
Ljleppan: The book is better than the other sources, but perhaps not enough on its own supported only by two weaker sources. I've requested an interlibrary loan of two other books which I hope will either prove useful, or where the lack of proper information should indicate this topic shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Julle: sounds good, let me know how it turns out. I'd be happy to change my !vote if the books warrant it. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Ljleppan: The book is better than the other sources, but perhaps not enough on its own supported only by two weaker sources. I've requested an interlibrary loan of two other books which I hope will either prove useful, or where the lack of proper information should indicate this topic shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !votes in light of sources added since this discussion began?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Torstenson Waras an alternative to deletion - Notability remains questionable and even if notable, this looks like it'd function better as a part of the broader article. No prejudice towards recreation if enough sources are found to actually make this any meaningful length. - Ljleppan ( talk) 15:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- Not opposed to
Vänersborg as an alternative merge target, per
asilvering below.
Ljleppan (
talk)
09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The second book source identified by Julle below drags this over the line for me even if I somewhat dislike their age. I still think the current content would better work as part of some larger article that gave more context, but that's an issue to better addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. - Ljleppan ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not opposed to
Vänersborg as an alternative merge target, per
asilvering below.
Ljleppan (
talk)
09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested an interlibrary loan for two books which could be useful here, Vilhelm Vessberg's Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643-1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen and Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfejden 1644–1645 : Den norske hærs bloddåb. They should hopefully prove useful in building out this article. If not, that'll have convinced me this shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Julle Any luck? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Asilvering: They have replied to my request and sent for at least one of them, but it hasn't arrived yet. /
Julle (
talk)
23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The books have arrived, but have to be read at the library; I can't bring them home. Hoping to find the time sit down there over the weekend. /
Julle (
talk)
20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind, only one of them had arrived. Still waiting for the other. /
Julle (
talk)
17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ping asilvering and Ljleppan. Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643–1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen wasn't terribly useful (it mentioned it, of course, but about in the same detail as some other sources), but Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb had an entire chapter called "The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway", which convinces me that this is a reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. / Julle ( talk) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind, only one of them had arrived. Still waiting for the other. /
Julle (
talk)
17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- The books have arrived, but have to be read at the library; I can't bring them home. Hoping to find the time sit down there over the weekend. /
Julle (
talk)
20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Asilvering: They have replied to my request and sent for at least one of them, but it hasn't arrived yet. /
Julle (
talk)
23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Julle Any luck? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: "merge without prejudice" per
Ljleppan seems the right way to go here, but I'm not crazy about adding it to
Torstenson War, as there really isn't any other information at that detail level there. Given that the sources on the battle article include the local museum, I assume it's of more interest on
Vänersborg. Thoughts? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Ljleppan ( talk) 09:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Mergeto Vänersborg per above comment (unless those sources come in for Julle in time, in which case ping me). -- asilvering ( talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)- Keep, since sources did come in in time. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb ("The Hannibal War 1643–45 : The Baptism of Blood of the Norwegian Army") has an entire chapter called "Normændens mislykkede angreb på Wenersborg og deres retræt indenfor Norges grænser" ("The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway"). It does cover more than the attack on Vänersborg, but there's plenty of focus on subject of the article here. In combination with the other sources, I think this is enough that it makes sense for us to have an article, not least because I don't think this level of detail would fit well into the current state of the article about Vänersborg. /
Julle (
talk)
16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work finding the book, I've adjusted my !vote above. Ljleppan ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. The addition of sources was helpful in the consensus for a keep. TLA (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Battle of Vänersborg ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find the sources to show this meets WP:N, or find a possible merge target. Boleyn ( talk) 09:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 09:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. I have somewhat expanded the article, adding at least a basic source. I have books which ought to have more detail. I'll investigate in a couple of days, once I'm done with the Christmas celebrations. / Julle ( talk) 12:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added a couple of references (most importantly from the book Vänersborgs historia : Tiden till 1838 by Carl-Fredrik Corin, the museum website is more of a passing mention) and expanded the article somewhat. / Julle ( talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Not too happy with this. A few words in a newspaper in 1645 is not great, and I've always been somewhat skeptical about using museums as sources. I'll assume the book is good, since I have no access to it myself. I'd be inclined to !vote to merge to
Torstenson War for now, but that is also in a rather abysmal state I'm not really feeling that either. -
Ljleppan (
talk)
10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
-
Ljleppan: The book is better than the other sources, but perhaps not enough on its own supported only by two weaker sources. I've requested an interlibrary loan of two other books which I hope will either prove useful, or where the lack of proper information should indicate this topic shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Julle: sounds good, let me know how it turns out. I'd be happy to change my !vote if the books warrant it. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Ljleppan: The book is better than the other sources, but perhaps not enough on its own supported only by two weaker sources. I've requested an interlibrary loan of two other books which I hope will either prove useful, or where the lack of proper information should indicate this topic shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !votes in light of sources added since this discussion began?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/ Rational 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Torstenson Waras an alternative to deletion - Notability remains questionable and even if notable, this looks like it'd function better as a part of the broader article. No prejudice towards recreation if enough sources are found to actually make this any meaningful length. - Ljleppan ( talk) 15:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)- Not opposed to
Vänersborg as an alternative merge target, per
asilvering below.
Ljleppan (
talk)
09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep - The second book source identified by Julle below drags this over the line for me even if I somewhat dislike their age. I still think the current content would better work as part of some larger article that gave more context, but that's an issue to better addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. - Ljleppan ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not opposed to
Vänersborg as an alternative merge target, per
asilvering below.
Ljleppan (
talk)
09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've requested an interlibrary loan for two books which could be useful here, Vilhelm Vessberg's Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643-1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen and Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfejden 1644–1645 : Den norske hærs bloddåb. They should hopefully prove useful in building out this article. If not, that'll have convinced me this shouldn't be a separate article. /
Julle (
talk)
10:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Julle Any luck? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Asilvering: They have replied to my request and sent for at least one of them, but it hasn't arrived yet. /
Julle (
talk)
23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The books have arrived, but have to be read at the library; I can't bring them home. Hoping to find the time sit down there over the weekend. /
Julle (
talk)
20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind, only one of them had arrived. Still waiting for the other. /
Julle (
talk)
17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ping asilvering and Ljleppan. Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643–1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen wasn't terribly useful (it mentioned it, of course, but about in the same detail as some other sources), but Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb had an entire chapter called "The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway", which convinces me that this is a reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. / Julle ( talk) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- OK, nevermind, only one of them had arrived. Still waiting for the other. /
Julle (
talk)
17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- The books have arrived, but have to be read at the library; I can't bring them home. Hoping to find the time sit down there over the weekend. /
Julle (
talk)
20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-
Asilvering: They have replied to my request and sent for at least one of them, but it hasn't arrived yet. /
Julle (
talk)
23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Julle Any luck? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: "merge without prejudice" per
Ljleppan seems the right way to go here, but I'm not crazy about adding it to
Torstenson War, as there really isn't any other information at that detail level there. Given that the sources on the battle article include the local museum, I assume it's of more interest on
Vänersborg. Thoughts? --
asilvering (
talk)
23:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Ljleppan ( talk) 09:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Mergeto Vänersborg per above comment (unless those sources come in for Julle in time, in which case ping me). -- asilvering ( talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)- Keep, since sources did come in in time. -- asilvering ( talk) 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb ("The Hannibal War 1643–45 : The Baptism of Blood of the Norwegian Army") has an entire chapter called "Normændens mislykkede angreb på Wenersborg og deres retræt indenfor Norges grænser" ("The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway"). It does cover more than the attack on Vänersborg, but there's plenty of focus on subject of the article here. In combination with the other sources, I think this is enough that it makes sense for us to have an article, not least because I don't think this level of detail would fit well into the current state of the article about Vänersborg. /
Julle (
talk)
16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work finding the book, I've adjusted my !vote above. Ljleppan ( talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- 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.