Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant Kusters

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 keep. consensus on sources/notability JForget 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Kusters

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Dutch politician. Article borders on an attack piece, very poorly referenced. Unable to independently verify. (Contested PROD). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree this does not meet WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are additional references at nl:Constant Kusters. Several news articles in Dutch can be found here Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Comment. I considered to put this up for G10 but thought if it could be pared back to one sentence the attack element might be avoided. The article was in a disgraceful state. I have no views on the notability of this one although there does seem to be a raft of coverage in Dutch press; just wanted to explain my blanking of nearly all of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say, from the 70 hits on Google news that appear to be good coverage and the reasonable state of the Dutch version of the article, that this is worthy to keep. It just need to be expanded in a NPOV way and utilize the sources at hand. It would also be reasonable to translate the information from the other article. Silver seren^C 00:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has received a lot of attention from the Dutch media - unfortunately, I don't speak Dutch, but his name is in enough headlines to suggest he's a notable figure. Moswento (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced in Dutch version of article, so it can stay a stub until someone gets around to translating that article and corresponding sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (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.