Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Vereniging Basisinkomen}} ([{{fullurl:Vereniging Basisinkomen|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Vereniging Basisinkomen is about a not notable Dutch organization, it is from Dutch language sources and unverifiable to English readers. It is a not notable organization, most every thing in the article is about basic income, and that has it's own article all ready. The article was selfpromotion by a community banned editor the organizations officer. Its deletion was blocked by the officer before he was community banned RetroS1mone talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The references are more than adequate to establish notability. There is no requirement that references be in English, and editors who cannot read Dutch can get a good idea of what the references say by using [http://translate.google.com/ Google Translate]. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how those references establish the notability of the organization. Sure, they establish that the issue of a 'basisinkomen' has been on the agenda and in the press, but there is no coverage of the actual organization. Ref. 4, to an article in Trouw, could possibly one such reference, but searching the archives on www.trouw.nl delivers nothing--the organization is only mentioned on their blogs. I looked through ten pages of Google hits, and the only hit (nothing from any of the Dutch papers or magazines, just blogs and press releases) is in [http://books.google.com/books?id=SELVuL_ZZwwC&pg=RA2-PA271&lpg=RA2-PA271&dq=vereniging+basisinkomen&source=bl&ots=vMVJB6CXXd&sig=M3f_TJQNih8bheDPSUnXgLWwxrY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result a book], where the organization is cited for a definition of 'basisinkomen.' That is not in-depth coverage. In short (and I don't care for any bans), the organization is not notable, and the sources don't establish it as such. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:*Note: Blogs are only unreliable when they're created by hobbyists or people of whom the identity cannot be determined. Since Trouw itself is a notable and reliable source, it should follow that its website and blog are too. Textbook example of a blog that can be considered a reliable source. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

::Even if that blog is reliable, it doesn't help much, in my opinion. The problem for me is that none of the newspapers have EVER written about this club, as far as I can tell. That confirms my suspicions--it's a fringe organization with laudable goals, but fringe. Not notable. And while I created Basic income in the Netherlands for this purpose, I don't see much in this article that can be merged. I'll be glad, if "merge" is the outcome, to do so, of course. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per investigation by Drmies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps the article and its references should therefore be moved to Basic income in the Netherlands, or merged into Basic income. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

::I wouldn't be opposed to that; if it is condensed to one paragraph, it could fit under the 'advocates' heading, esp. since Saar Boerlage is mentioned in there, and her name comes up in this article too. But esp. some of the references need to be cut, I think, or moved--it would be best, in my opinion, to merge it into an article 'Basic Income in the Netherlands,' since it's a bit too much for 'Basic Income' and not enough to stand on its own. Besides, these references might actually make it fairly easy to hammer out a stub for 'Basic Income in NL.' Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

::Basic Income in the Netherlands: done. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and add a sentence to Basic income when people find a notable source for it. RetroS1mone talk 05:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or to be merged into an article on 'Basic Income in the Netherlands'. "Basic income" is way to general to accomodate these informations. G Purevdorj (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Enough has been said on this non-topic. Miami33139 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - during the first AFD I initially !voted keep, based on the presence of a large number of sources. I then reviewed the sources in greater depth, and found them lacking and changed to !undecided. Mentions were either brief throwaways that couldn't be used to justify any text (i.e. essentially stating that VBI exists but not staying much else beyond address and phone number) or were from themselves extremely dubious notability sources (and here I'm thinking of the nomination of one VBI member for an award by a tiny political party, that no longer exists and never received a parliamentary presence, from another country in a non-Dutch/English language source, for which their work, of which VBI was only part - that may be notability for the person, at a stretch, but not for the organization). After re-visiting all my previous analysis and discussions on the organization and the references/sources, and checking the history to see nothing has changed since my last edit bar the addition of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vereniging_Basisinkomen&diff=211523379&oldid=210572529 category], I am quite comfortable with a !vote of delete. Discussion is minimal and insufficient to pass the guidelines of WP:CORP. I am comfortable with what minimal information that exists being merged into the Basic income in the Netherlands page as a section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge According to the previous commenter the sources are lacking in depth to support an article, but he ends by saying that it could still be merged. Since it is still verifiable, a brief mention in the already named article is warranted. To nominator: while English references are preferred, they're not required. Please read the rules, so you can base your nomination of common practice rather than your own opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (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.