I am in one sense amused, in another sense astonished, that Ellen Hambro, the leader of what is effectively the Norwegian Environmental Protection Agency, up for AFD, and even more astonished to see some long time contributors voting to delete it.
Here is a fact: Ellen Hambro is covered in a paper encyclopedia, "Store norske leksikon", which is the largest, and most well-known of all contemporary general-purpose Norwegian encyclopedias written on 15 volumes of paper.
And yet I see people rejecting this encyclopedia as "not intellectually independent" and "crypto-official".
I would not be writing this list if this were a one-off occurrence, but this is the third time in only a few weeks that I have seen encyclopedia subjects (and this means: has a separate article in a general-purpose paper encyclopedia) nominated for deletion. The other two are the articles [[Glamour (presentation)]] and [[Star Shipping]], the latter which was nominated for *speedy* deletion, and had that speedy tag stuck on it for several hours.
There comes a point when we need to do a reality check. The reality is that we are in danger of deleting a subject which a commercial general-purpose print encyclopedia has deemed notable enough to be within their limited pages. Deleting any of these articles will be an action more profound than deleting Mzoli's, Terry Shannon, or Pownce would ever be.
I fear that the zeal to delete articles in the name of enforcing policies and the notability guidelines are starting to encroach upon the fundamentals Wikipedia's mission to be an encyclopedia. We cannot possibly claim to be comprehensive if we start deleting subjects covered in the very works we want to surpass. I really don't consider myself an "inclusionist", but is it really all that "inclusionist" to support keeping subjects traditionally covered by encyclopedias?
Sjakkalle