Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greeks in Denmark

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Denmark

fails WP:N 2 google news searches couldn't find significant coverage [1] [2] LibStar (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well referenced to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Zero assertion of importance or significance. Greek people exist in Denmark. Okay, so what? Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it was actually quite poorly referenced at the time of Richard Arthur Norton's comment, but now the "References" and "Further reading" sections list a number of book chapters and journal articles about this group. cab (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's the added content, not the references, that is important and makes the subject notable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If an article has references which address its topic, but little content, it is a WP:STUB; it can always be expanded on the basis of the references by anyone who can read. But if there don't exist any non-trivial references about the topic of an article, then by definition all of its content is WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:TRIVIA, etc. This is precisely what notability means. cab (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good enough for me.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:ILIKEIT LibStar (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then let's search for a reasoning it will be better for you: the article is cited; presents the history of the Greek community in Denmark in an interesting way; it has a certain historical background; it has sources. Well, it is stub; and what with that? Do we expel stubs for Wikipedia? I thus believe it is cited, well-referenced and it should stay.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing reasons for your vote. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two very good references. Gsearch for the exact phrase "greek community & denmrk is inadequate to get the material as they are many other ways of wording it.DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems good enough to keep. Afkatk (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I've been to Denmark and even though I tried, I only found one Greek establishment, so I'm not sure how notable Greeks in Denmark could possibly be. However, the article is fairly well sourced and I found it pretty interesting. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article provides reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability for a cohesive community. Alansohn (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (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.