Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flemish Interest

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. ugen64 21:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flemish Interest

This article is not encyclopedic. It is too long and does not contain a logical build up of neutral factual information. I suggest deletion or a total rewrite of this article

This article is not encyclopedic at all. It does not contain neutral unbiased information presented in a logical and concise build up. (history of the political party, founders, members, party programme, participation in elections,...) The article is clearly being dominated by one or a few contributors, containing dubious research and discussions of non-events. Furthermore, the article in its present form is too long to be of an encyclopedic nature. I suggest deletion or a total rewrite of this article. --Ratatouille 07:49, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There's enough factual info in there to at least reduce it to a viable stub. I prefer you'd take it to the discussion page rather than VFD. BTW can you explain this deletion? I would've thought at least the cats and interwiki links were keepable in a content dispute. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)`

I feel this article should be completely overhauled and rewritten from scratch. That is why I put it up for deletion as in its present form I think it is too long and certainly not encyclopedic like. (e.g. why all the ramblings on nazism, while this party is barely one year old?) --Ratatouille 10:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a party that split from the Flemish Block. Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, no. It is the same as the Flemish Block, only the block was recently deemed an illegal organization, so they cleaned up their act to some extent and started under a new name. I believe this sufficient grounds for merging both, since they basically are the same people with the same aims and goals. Radiant_* 12:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the same. I meant it was formed as a result from the Flemish Block (see the Dutch entry). Besides, if they're different, I don't see a reason to merge them. Mgm|^(talk) 21:44, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 10:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject is clearly encyclopedic, even if the article in it's current state is not neutral. clean it up and make it unbiased, don't delete! -- Joolz 14:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, VfD is not the place to resolve NPOV disputes. Martg76 15:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, The recent major rewrite by Joolz was successful. BTW, the article in its current state is certainly neutral.--Jvb – April 15, 2005
• Keep, this article is informative. Goferwiki 15:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.