Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch customs and etiquette

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch customs and etiquette

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

This is essentially a guide on dealing with Dutch people for foreigners, which seems a clear violation of wp:NOTGUIDE. Most of the material (which is highly anecdotal and essentially unsourced) is actually general European ettiquette, for which a separate article exists. ~~In fact this seems to be the only national version of an etiquette article.~~ A few other national etiquette exists, but they seem to have the same problems. Yoenit (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered that we now have a travelguide as a sister project. Perhaps we can transwiki it to Wikivoyage? Yoenit (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS case, but this is not the only national level article. See Category:Etiquette by region for such examples as: Customs and etiquette in Italy and even Customs and etiquette in Hawaii. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected. However, in my honest opinion those articles suffer from the exact same problems and should also be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sure Actually quite an informative article. Lack of sources is a problem, but I'm sure some good ones could be found. I'm not sure about the "not a how-to" issue, since the main purpose of these articles is always going to be as a guide even if some people do have an impersonal intellectual interest in cultures and customs.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW this article is much better than Etiquette in Europe, which is a mish-mash. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable topic, covered in lots of sources. One book, another,a more general one that also covers Netherlands, discussed in travel books, etc. --Cyclopia^talk 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how that is relevant as I did not challenge the notability of the subject. Cooking recipes are also notable and there are thousands of books on them, yet we do not allow articles on cooking recipes on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You "fail to see how that is relevant"? Well, it happens Notability is basically the only relevant criteria for deletion or retention of articles. And in fact we host a lot of articles about recipes. We don't have the recipes themselves inside these articles per WP:NOTHOWTO, but that is a content issue, not an article existence issue (it would be in a few cases, e.g. if we were talking of an article called "How to make a cake" - not our case here). If your only concern with the article is that it is styled as a guide, then you can fix it by editing the article, and as such deletion policy requires us to keep. Deletion is not cleanup. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Probably not the best or most relevant article in Wikipedia, but mostly harmless, clearly notable and sufficiently sourced. Arnoutf (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented above by User:Cyclopia. This topic clearly passes the threshold of WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but there are many books devoted to the subject, such as this additional one, so good sources clearly exist. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nomination does not hold water, pardon the pun. This is exactly the sort of article that does get kept here, and with a little fixing and added citations, it should be a good start. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (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.