Talk:Norway Scholarship

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Oxford

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Norway

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles

For some reason people are trying to prevent the current holders of the scholarship from being listed in the article. Until this matter is resolved I am reproducing the material here:

The current scholars are André Nilsen, Tor Otterholt, and Abid Raja.

Abid Raja is a leading politician, lawyer, and media personality in Norway. He was previously the chief spokesman of the Muslim community in Norway and serves on a national council that advises the Norwegian government.

André Nilsen is the chairman and managing director of the Oxford Council on Good Governance.

Dan100 08:45, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The holders of the scholarship aren't notable or of general interest. Just because something is factual doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. --fvw * 09:12, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

It is implicit that anyone who is researching the Scholarship would also be interested in who it has been awarded to. Dan100 09:58, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, by that idea all winners of Math competitions and the like would be worth listing too. Being awarded a scholarship does not make you of interest. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. --fvw * 10:13, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Of course being awarded a scholarship does not make someone interesting. Who has been awarded a particular scholarship most likely is, and hence that information is valid to be included in the appriopiate article. I'm sure you can appreciate the subtle difference. You should also note that you have no right to remove valid information from an existing article. Dan100 14:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

If someone is notable, they should get an article about them; Such an article would be a perfectly good place to note that person got this scholarship. However the community decided this person wasn't. Sneaking a mini-bio in here is bad faith editing.

What makes you think I'm not allowed to remove data from this article? Barring ArbCom decisions, anyone is allowed to edit any article, which includes adding, removing and changing content. --fvw * 15:20, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

I agree with fvw: the recipients of a scholarship are entirely unencyclopedic if they have done nothing of importance besides win the scholarship. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 15:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am intrigued that you are not removing the names of past winners from the article while you happily remove the names of the current holders.

Good point, I've removed the non-notable ones (I'm assuming only the linked ones have articles? Feel free to add any others that have articles).

Why do you believe they are any more or less notable? And I again remind you, you have no right to remove valid information. Reverting. Dan100 19:14, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

You keep saying that, what policy are you basing that on exactly? --fvw * 19:32, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

What do you think Wikipedia is all about? Wikipedia is about building articles, not destroying them. And I suggest you find the policy which says it's ok to remove valid material from an existing article. Dan100 20:13, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find your arrogance to claim to know which citizens of a country you do not even live in are notable or not astounding. Dan100 21:42, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Accusing us of attempting to destroy the article by removing what we see as spam is an unacceptable personal attack on par with calling us vandals. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I admit I do not know whether or not Andre Nilsen is notable. I have never read his article and did not participate in its VFD discussion. However, it was deleted because the community decided that he was not notable. If he is just another recipient of the Norway Scholarship (of which which, according to the article, there have been about eighty), and is notable for no other reason than his having recieved the scholarship (as evidenced by the VFD w/consensus to delete), then he should not be mentioned as a "current scholar". I believe that current or past scholars should only be mentioned if they have done enough of note to merit their own article.

Incidentally, do not these four edits -- [1], [2], [3], [4] -- constitute a 3RR violation? Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 22:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes they do. I'm not impartial, so I'm not going to ban anybody. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I propose a compromise: list only the most notable winners of the scholarship on this article (i.e. those who have existent articles which have not been deleted), and create a separate list article in which all eighty-plus scholars are listed: List of Norway Scholarship recipients or something. This really seems a trivial matter for edit-warring. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 02:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see the point, the list isn't really notable. But at least such a list would be VfDable for a clear decision should someone (I'm not ruling it being me out) think it non-notable, so I suppose it would be a good way to end this edit war. Please don't link to people who have had their article deleted though, as it would only encourage recreation of that article. --fvw * 15:15, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

The current scholars should be included. As for Andre Nilsen, there is widespread resistance to his article being deleted. Therefore a lot of people in several countries have over the past month either repeatedly restored it or voiced their support for it being allowed to stay. Unfortunately, a bunch of wikipedia-dictators who themselves admit they base their decisions more on emotions than reason keep deleting them and protecting the pages against recreation. According to the wikipedia deletion policy, constant recreation of a deleted page should be taken by the community as a sign that an article should stay. Please respect this. Charlotte
- The place to say this is at votes for undeletion. Until that debate has been decided, please refrain from linking to the deleted article. As for the current scholars, please see my above proposed compromise, and discuss here before making changes. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:15, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A simple question: why the rabid desire to remove information from the encyclopedia? Don't bother with old, lame subjective opinions on 'notability' (I'm not terribly interested if you know about these people or not). Tell me what harm the names do. Dan100 21:58, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The names were added as part of what is viewed as a campaign of self-promotion by Andre Nilsen. We don't want to be used for his own benefit, We also don't want to be used to tell the world that Company X sells "herbal viagra" for low low prices. It may be true, but it is not a good faith addition.

Secondly, having some of the winners, but not all, implies that the ones that are listed are somehow more important than the ones that are missing.

Thirdly, I'm growing very unhappy with your inability to argue without resorting to insults. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)