Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia


 * 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   Speedy Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Low Saxon Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This wiki does not have a large number of articles. TheChampionMan1234 03:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-referenced article about a notable Wikipedia. The lack of a "large number of articles" is not a valid argument for deletion.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe speedy. Nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion, and the article already cites multiple sources, so notability appears to be established. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – This nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nomination does not propose a policy based rationale for deletion. KTC (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Wikipedias. While the nomination is indeed not based in policy, since the article is here for discussion, I don't believe it's sufficiently notable - note that several of those "multiple sources" are Wikipedia links, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:SK no argument for deletion, no subsequent !vote for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2012 (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.