Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging STOP awacs

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 except signature updates.

The result was keep. Seems like there are multiple sources to be cited out there, which gets rid of the WP:N concern. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vereniging STOP awacs

Vereniging STOP awacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Point of view in article (could not find CSD template to fit) George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to something such as Noise pollution in the Netherlands and cite. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The whole thing's written like an argument against those planes, it's against
    NPOV. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete per failing
  WP:N, as this seems like a "local" issue, and appears to be a "cry for help" to try and get others sympathy on the issue. ArcAngel (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment
    WP:NPOV isn't really a reason to delete, it would just need to be rewritten/revised to meet the policy. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment: What if we consider it under
      WP:N then? George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, of course - I was merely pointing out a possible argument focusing solely on
        WP:NPOV. Non-notable = delete. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete evidence suggests that this is a local protest group. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep there does appear to be sufficient coverage. Unfortunately almost no information in English so I don't know how significant, but it is mentioned in several articles in different sources over a few years. Article does provide some information - it would need to be rewritten for NPOV but that is not a reason to delete. --
  Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above, can be sourced and made neutral. - cohesion 01:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I think making it neutral would essentially make this a stub. But if there is coverage of the group in local language news, then it should be kept to allow Dutch readers to improve the article. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.