The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I'm posting this on behalf of Doktor Züm, who got stuck during the nomination process. I'm doing so neutrally. (I haven't yet even read the article. Later, perhaps I'll read it and express an opinion on its fate.) I invite Doktor Züm to comment below. -- Hoary ( talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @ Hoary.
Despite being tagged for a decade as needing references, this article has none (the existing two references are pathetic); thus it fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:No original research. Also, the article is mostly unreadable to the lay reader, so fails WP:Technical: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." -- Doktor Züm ( talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. The comment above mine also appears to be a "delete" !vote. 71.228.112.175 ( talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KSAWikipedian (
talk)
04:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
I'm posting this on behalf of Doktor Züm, who got stuck during the nomination process. I'm doing so neutrally. (I haven't yet even read the article. Later, perhaps I'll read it and express an opinion on its fate.) I invite Doktor Züm to comment below. -- Hoary ( talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @ Hoary.
Despite being tagged for a decade as needing references, this article has none (the existing two references are pathetic); thus it fails WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability and WP:No original research. Also, the article is mostly unreadable to the lay reader, so fails WP:Technical: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." -- Doktor Züm ( talk) 07:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. The comment above mine also appears to be a "delete" !vote. 71.228.112.175 ( talk) 11:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KSAWikipedian (
talk)
04:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
03:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)