Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pieter Nieuwland College


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Pieter Nieuwland College
Dutch school. (Closing admin: This is a procedural listing. Count me as neutral.) BanyanTree 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to assert notability.-- Hús  ö  nd  04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a prestige secondary school. It already has an article in the Dutch-language Wikipedia at nl:Pieter Nieuwland College. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This was my mistake; it looked like nonsense when I first flagged it, but on closer observation it is just awkward English. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt and time to improve it. --Mdresser 14:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Awkward English? It's in Dutch, not English. Arbusto 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference was to the original version of the Pieter Nieuwland College article on English Wikipedia. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete the two links on the page aren't in english. Perhaps if the sources were in english and pertained to a subject in english then it would be possible to consider it for english wikipedia. As for now, it has an article at nl:Pieter Nieuwland College, and thus should be a concern for the editors in the Netherlands. Arbusto 08:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Foreign-language sources are acceptable under some circumstances. WP:SOURCE offers the following comments about the language of sources:
 * English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable when there are no English equivalents in terms of quality and relevance. Published translations are generally preferred to editors translating material on their own; when editors do use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, perhaps in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. For my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per TT and others for now presuming that the dutch can be translated into something indicating an actually notable article. If after converstion etc. occurs there are still notability issues, then delete. JoshuaZ 06:44, 6 November 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.