Talk:Kampen Church, Oslo

Tags

What sources are good enough references and reliable sources? This article is not an orphan and does not need additional citations. The sources are in a foreign language, all right, but that is a large number of the references in Wikipedia articles. Conclution: Remove the taging of the article immediately, and don't tag just for fun! User:Carsten R D talk 23:57 CET

@Carsten R D: I did not tag the article "for fun". I tagged it with the {{notability}} template because the references don't adequately reflect the church's notability. I made a mistake with the {{refimprove}} tag, so I've removed it. I've also removed the {{orphan}} tag because the article has been linked to by Kampen, Norway.

@Linquist111: Why not objectively justify why the citations are not good enough? Clear the tag or let others do it. User:Carsten R D talk

As I said, the references don't adequately reflect the church's notability; in this case, it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for buildings. Until notability can be established, the tag will have to remain. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 22:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linquist111:I refer to the recent amendments of the article, and ask: What does it take to make the article good enough so that the tags can be removed? What remains for the tag to be removed, as long as you use so much power to keep it, Mr. Linquist? Can you not help by creating yourself, rather than continue to insist taging the article? User:Carsten R D talk September 13, 2016 CET 18:48

In response to the you left me on your talk page, I am not vandalising the article. I added the notability tag to it in good faith, because the sources did not reflect separate notability. Note that it's not necessarily the quantity of sources, but their reliability and whether they indicate a subject is notable enough to have its own individual Wikipedia article. I did search for more sources, but it seems a lot of them, like are just routine coverage given to places in the area. There are some news articles which mention the church, such as this one from Verdens Gang about a same-sex marriage taking place in the church, this one from Nettavisen about the church opening to refugees, and this one from Dagbladet about Jon Bing's funeral taking place. This does increase the chance of the church being notable, but please don't remove the tag yet. It would definitely be helpful if this information could be added to the article (I would do it but I can't understand Norwegian very well). Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 17:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linquist111:So, you are the one to decide wether or not the sources are reliable? Please tell me why all these different sources, most of them objective and comlete indepandant of this church, do not reflect separate notability. And specifically, what should be removed and what should be added, so that the tag can be removed once and for all? You must also remember that this is not just about a religious community, but a structure that is known for containing valuable works of art. You have your opinion on this, but do you have the right to decide whether this deserves a tag? If you can find some better sources, why not spend the time to add these in the article, instead of holding on to your right to tag? Or is your goal to delete the whole article? User:Carsten R D September 13, 2016 20:27 (CET)

(edit conflict) If anyone believes that a subject may not be notable enough to have an article, and it has an article, then they may place a tag on it. Other editors may remove the tag if they can address the issue by adding reliable sources that indicate notability, or if it is clear the tag was added in bad faith to an article whose subject is clearly notable (e.g. if someone tagged the Empire State Building). The sources you added seemed to be general routine coverage and descriptions of the church, so it was unclear whether the church was notable or run-of-the-mill. But now, with the finding of the sources I included in my comment above, the church has a higher chance of being notable. As I said, it would be helpful if the information provided in those sources could be added to the article because it would improve its quality and better its chances of being kept. I can't do this, however, because I don't understand Norwegian well enough. It is not my "goal" to have the article deleted, but unless separate notability can be ascertained, it will have to be deleted, merged with or redirected to another article per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out a mistake: It's "Linguist111", with a "g", not a "q". Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 18:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Linguist111 Please explain how this article doesn't meet the first bullet point of WP:GEOFEAT. The building is listed & protected by the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage, which appears to satisfy "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". Joseph2302 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I seem to have overlooked that. I'll remove the notability tag. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 20:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Linquist111:You have sent me a number of source-proposals. I can not understand why the fact that I have not included such sources, is preventing you from lifting the tag. The theme in the proposals is the local congregation's opinions on various matters. This is off topic in the many articles about churches I've written. User:Carsten R D September 13, 2016 22:44 (CET)

I've removed both tags from the article, so there is no need for further discussion on this. Linguist 111 ^Moi? Moi. 20:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)