A fact from Kristian Vilhelm Koren Schjelderup Jr. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 472 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
I know it does, and that one ref I found isn't the best way to do it. But I'm at work and can't check LexisNexis. Putting a notability tag up is probably best. -- ₪ Amused ReposeConverse!17:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think removal of a large chunk of text about a deceased person, text which is not controversial or potentially damaging, for the reason which you provide is quite inappropriate. The text should be reinstated and tagged with a reference request. That is quite sufficient. __meco (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're fine with an entire page of completely unreferenced content that can't be verified or even found anywhere? Go ahead and restore it. Don't expect me to, however. I've already tried to get some kind of reference in here and I'm tired of dealing with an author that describes adding tags for reference requests as vandalism. -- ₪ Amused ReposeConverse!15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Court keeps a list of all appointments to the Order of St. Olav. If I can confirm that much is accurate and verified, then I can assume the rest is good. If that comes back as untrue, then I can proceed to start trying to verify the other claims in the article. -- ₪ Amused ReposeConverse!22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why in the first place you doubted the content of this article? After all, Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of other articles similarly unreferenced claiming relatively innocuous facts. __meco (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original author has done some, shall we say, factually challenged edits before, such as on David Irving. And whenever I do a search on someone and can't find a single reliable source, I typically hold that the article doesn't belong on WP. If there was even a good source that backed all this up, that'd be the end of it. But even on the Norweigian wp there isn't. -- ₪ Amused ReposeConverse!19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]