Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch conjugation

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The result of the debate was Speedy keep as withdrawn. Kotepho 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch conjugation

I fail to the the encyclopedic value of this. I looks like a manual, which anyway isn't useful unless you speek dutch. Ezeu 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination and request a speedy keep. --Ezeu 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep articles about grammar are useful. In fact, we need more of them. --Tone 19:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is there policy on articles on grammar? If not, someone should get round to initiating a discussion. Hornplease 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, of course. Does it violate some policy? How does Wikipedia become any better if readers who want to find out some detail of, say, Lugandan verbs, can't find it, not because the information isn't there yet, but because it was deleted by people who failed to grasp the "encyclopedic value". The encyclopedic value is that if you look for it, it's there. --Lambiam^Talk 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, self-evidently encyclopedic. Sandstein 20:30, 18 May 2006 (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.