Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen


 * 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 to delete, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vereniging Basisinkomen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Request for deletion. This organisation is not notable, promoted by one of the references Guido den Broeder, and deleted on the Dutch wikipedia as well. Migdejong (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no article on this topic in nl:Wikipedia.
 * Since I have a declared COI, I will not take part in this procedure, except to answer questions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe COI means you can't edit the main page, it doesn't mean you don't get an opinion on the AFD discussion or talk page. If you can provide unquestionable proof the page passes WP:CORP, then the AFD discussion can end immediately.  WLU (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note The Dutch WP consensus has no meaning here; we're a seperate project, the same as our decisions have no value on their side. The article is heavily sourced apparently to multiple sources. How is it not notable? Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am undecided atm. It depends on the coverage by VPRO's De Ochtenden, who apparently went to one of their conferences. If they covered the organisation, it would go a long way towards establishing the notability of this organisation. But if they covered the topic of a guaranteed minimum income, they at best mentioned the organisation in passing, which wouldn't establish notability. A  ecis Brievenbus 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Honoustly I have to agree with Aecis here. Migdejong (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete . I was asked by Guido to comment on my talk page.  Based on my analysis of the sources found in this version there is insufficient evidence that the page is notable per WP:CORP.  My analysis of the 19 sources found on that version of the page can be found here.  Even should more sources be added, there is a significant problem of coatracking which should be dealt with if the page is not deleted.  WLU (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC) User has archived my comments on his analysis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- based on the recognition by a Dutch political party (from page 195-6 of this document, translated via babelfish 'cause I can't read dutch) I think there's enough to establish notability. The page is still a coatrack and content fork in my opinion, but at least a notable one.   Undecided I hate to chage my mind, but based on a bit more context around the new sources, I don't feel comfortable with keep.  What a mess.  I've re-written the page by the way, so now it is (in my mind) solely about VBI and no longer a coatrack or POV fork.  WLU (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to comment on this coverage, calling the Natuurwetpartij a political party is a bit of a stretch. It's a movement that is was active in politics, but it has never managed to exceed the realm of fringe parties. In the 1998 elections, where they mentioned Vereniging Basisinkomen, the party got 0.00183% of the votes. They haven't taken part in any other elections. Even calling this party an also-ran would be an exaggeration. A  ecis Brievenbus 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It never fails to disturb me as to what will get deleted here under accusations of being non-notable.  This has included, among other things, title-winning athletes, just because they won a now defunct title decades earlier and none of the editors voting had heard of them.  Undecided is, fortunately, a significant improvement over that flavor of VfD.  If it might not be important enough, then don't include it with the Wikipedia 1.0 DVD.  Just tag the article and note that it's needing review by a disinterested party with fluency in Nederlands for possible bias and changed accordingly -- presumably that's a job for Wikiproject Netherlands. -- Strangelv (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this page seems to be a point of conflict and seems there is some possible WP:COI involved here. The four book references seems notable although perhaps only three are independent of the source. I would encourage anyone to check for themselves in books and scholar. . SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My analysis included the four book sources, but in my opinion the coverage of VB in each one was trivial (one sentence in two, perhaps two sentences in the German, and only a mention in the acknowledgements in the fourth). I think that WP:CORP supports the notability being established by sources having a thorough discussion but no-one ever agrees with me :( WLU (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are partly right as each of the pages shown on g-books is not significant itself, if there was only one such reference then it could be dismissed. Here however we have three or perhaps four independent book sources. In WP:CORP it deals with this by saying If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. I suggest multiple independent book sources are enough in this case. SunCreator (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems also another independent source has been discovered, I saw the link on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have listened to the VPRO report, which can be found here. You can listen to it by clicking the speaker, the segment that is relevant to this discussion is from 32:38 to 41:38 (in Dutch). After having listened to it, I am edging closer towards delete. The report starts by mentioning that Vereniging Basisinkomen has held a conference, but the report is not about the VB, it's about the topic of a guaranteed minimum income. I see that as a passing mention. I haven't made up my mind about this article though, as I haven't looked into the literature listed above yet. A  ecis Brievenbus 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * During a large part of the coverage, you are hearing Michiel van Hasselt, in his capacity as chairman of the Vereniging Basisinkomen. Each time he says 'we', that denotes the vereniging. Most other speakers are members. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But he's not talking about the Vereniging Basisinkomen, he's talking about guaranteed minimum income, as do all the others. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He is talking about the findings and conclusions of the vereniging with regard to basic income, not his personal findings and conclusions. Perhaps it helps if you point to an article in Wikipedia where it is different, and an organization meets your standards. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - self promotion - GijsvdL (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Afd is about whether the topic is suitable for a wiki article. Discussion about the existing article can be discussed on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient sources. If the article has shortcomings, COI or otherwise, fix them, but don't throw out the child with the bathwater. --Yooden &#9774; 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reminds me a lot of Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging (see also Deletion review/Log/2007 November 5), another article created by Guido den Broeder about a Vereniging he was closely related with (the article can now be seen at User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging. That one as well had at first glance a lot of sources, but in the end it turned out that none of them were reliable, independent, and indepth. In this case, the sources are either self published or about the Basisinkomen, but not at any length about the Vereniging Basisinkomen (the proceedings of a symposium, in German, are the most extensive so far). An article on an organization of dubious notability, created by their treasurer, who has had already an article deleted for exactly the same reasons and is well aware of the COI guideline... not much reason to keep this one around. Fram (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) The organization was not created by their current treasurer. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)</small made clearer Fram (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Afd is about whether the topic is suitable for a wiki article. Discussion about the existing article can be discussed on the articles talk page. SunCreator (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the topic is, judging by the sources in the article (and the talk page) and the sources found on the internet, not suitable for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I respect your opinion. SunCreator (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note I have added some additional material to the talk page of the article (from the google search). This includes a prize nomination by Belgian political party Vivant to a long-time chairperson in recognition of all the work that she and the vereniging have done. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For context, prize nomination was for an honorary member of VBI, and she didn't win. I'm not sure how much discussion there was of the person versus the organization. And the political party providing the recognition above was only active in a single election, receiving apparently 0.002% of the vote.  WLU (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "(With this nomination) Vivant also recognizes the efforts and openness of the Vereniging Basisinkomen in the strive for larger support for the introduction of a basic income." Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It still is only a nomination for an insignificant or barely significant award. A  ecis Brievenbus 20:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - confronted with the issue of notability Guido came up with a list of 'Lidorganisaties' (member organisations) en 'Sympathiserende organisaties' (sympathizing organisations) both mentioning "per 1 mei 1989" (on May 1st, 1989). In the article the 'Vereniging Basisinkomen' it says "The organization was created in 1991 .." So that list might be applicable to an 'ancestor' of this organisation but if that's the best you have to prove the topic of this article is important enough, then to me that looks like a good reason to doubt its notability. - Robotje (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After having gone through the sources listed above, I have to !vote to delete this article. Just about all of the sources mention the organisation in passing. This would verify that the organisation exists and what they do, but this is not sufficient to establish notability. The VPRO coverage above, for instance, talks about the notion of a guaranteed minimum income, not about VBI. The Vivant award was a nomination of one VBI member for an insignificant award by an only somewhat notable party. The one sentence acknowledgements in several books do not create notability either, imo. The source that came closest to establishing notability was Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Hoffnung: Reformfähigkeit und die Möglichkeit rationaler Politik. But like the other sources, it verifies the organisation's activities, but it doesn't establish the notability of the subject. A  ecis Brievenbus 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has organized two major international events which have received full media coverage, a jubileum conference with media coverage, and dozens of study sessions and open discussions with notable speakers (i.e. with their own Wikipedia article, including scientists, members of parliament and trade union leaders). It received a starting capital from Dutch trade unions and political parties and for a long time was located in a trade union building. It received a subsidy from the city of Amsterdam for many years. Its representatives, in that capacity, have been speakers and session leaders on countless events organized by notable organizations (i.e. with their own article on Wikipedia) on invitation, which lead to further media coverage of the topic. Its work has inspired eight political movements to advocate the introduction of a basic income, and recently forms of a negative income tax were in fact introduced to the Dutch tax system. If topics like these no not belong in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia should be emptied or renamed to 'Pokemon Wiki'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the Dutch wikipedia is certain this isn't a notable organization. LucianoHdk (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue has never come up on nl:Wikipedia. Meanwhile, be advised that this is not a vote. It makes no difference how many single-purpose accounts are created or reactivated Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC) just to add the word 'delete'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the account was created on August 31, 2007, so it was not "created just to add the word 'delete'."  A  ecis Brievenbus 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here for me is if 5 or 6 independent reliable sources (which only mention the topic) is enough for notability? My understand and reading of WP:CORP is that it is enough. The intent being that those source establish notability but the articles contents does not have to come from independent reliable sources, as it can come from source that are not independent of which there are quite a few. So for me it's a clear keep but others may disagree WP:CORP is only a guideline after all, so I don't wish to speed another moment looking at the topic. SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (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.