Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravensteengroep

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 was Keep. I suggest that this article will not survive long-term unless reliable sources to show the group's importance are added. Even in the articles cited at nl.wiki I couldn't see any hint of this group having activities beyond publishing the manifesto. Find sources for more, if you can. Articles in Dutch would be OK, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gravensteengroep

Gravensteengroep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article was speedy deleted and immediately restored by author. It is a sort of test page, and hasn't been improved upon in more than a month. db-repost was denied Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment G4 (db-repost) is only for articles that have gone through AfD before, not articles that were previously speedied. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's true, but if the article is substantially similar, the original speedy reason probably applies. - Revolving Bugbear 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There's a small bit of coverage in Google News Archive, all in Dutch, so it's hard to evaluate how significant it is. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Dhartung found good sources in Dutch; I translated them with Babelfish and they are clearly Dutch news articles about this group with some depth of coverage. The topic is viable, and the article is not in such terrible shape that it needs deleting. Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the coverage pointed to by Dhartung appears to establish notability after I ran a couple of them through a web translator. Would urge someone who knows Dutch to use them to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)