Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haplogroup O-K18


 * 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 Draftify given 's intention of working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Haplogroup O-K18

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for accuracy since December of 2012. Referencing is a disaster -- almost all footnotes are to undefined sources. Delete per Blow it up and start over. Mikeblas (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify? referencing is a mess, needs a rewrite, but I think it's been around too long to be draftified. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify. I'd be willing to work on it with my A.P. Biology students. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Messy but can be fixed without being moved into draftspace. There are plenty of references, but they need to be reorganized. Please see Wikipedia policies about how articles that are somewhat messy but nevertheless notable with lots of useful information should not be deleted. — Sago tree spirit  (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please make sure you're looking at the right article. This one has more than 350 "harvnb: no target" errors. These problems have existed since at least 2013, so it's obvious there no interest in fixing the issues or trying to verify the material the article presents. Add that to unaddressed tagging for jargon and the other problems, and I think it's clear nobody is interested in working on this and it won't be missed if deleted. Drafting it is a gift, but either way such a poor article doesn't belong in this corpus. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The creator of this article (Ebizur) has made hundreds of edits continually over the course of 16 years, in addition to several other editors over shorter time periods. I think there is quite clear interest in working on this page. It may be that this article can get the direction it needs through a cleanup discussion on its talk page. &#8213; Synpath 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great thing to do in draft-space. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete/draftify, ghastly mess. If someone hasn't looked at it in over 9 years, that speaks for itself. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.