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. Long-standing community consensus is that verifiable inhabited places merit inclusion. The article has now been made more readable.  Sandstein  17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Werken[edit]

Werken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unsourced article with no formatting, content or discernable theme. Highly unreadable. RichardMills65 (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Populated places are always notable, and this was merely a matter of removing whatever was crapped on the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above. Inherently notable, scope for improvement. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2012 (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.