Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunder

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunder[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Most sources found are primarily mentioning the Under in passing mention or coming from user-written sources. Primary concern is notability; confident it isn't a hoax, but this article seems better either deleted or merged into another article. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i added a reference. The word is Bunder, not Under. And it is definitely not a hoax. The old word is actually quite familiar to modern dutch speakers, probably because Winnie the Pooh in the dutch translation lives in "honderdbunderland", a hundred bunder lands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deWP article has a number of usable references (the nlWP one is very undersourced). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. de:Bunder is a well developed article which is well referenced. The sources there prove the topic passes GNG. I placed a tag for translation on the article so that German speaking wikipedians on the english wiki can assist in properly developing the English language wiki article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Whatever the potential of the article, as it stands it is woefully undersourced and fails WP:V, which dictates that contested unsourced material must be removed from the encyclopedia. Sandstein 06:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I removed the unreferenced bits and added a high quality source. There's lots of room to improve but that, at the very least, is enough to keep the article. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:00, 7 October 2022 (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.