Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Reinecke


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Paul Reinecke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has no references whatsoever. It's also a stub. No interest has been shown for editing the article either. It's best to remove it Yashovardhan (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator

Thank you for the discussion. It was a mistake on my part to have nominated this for deletion. I should have researched on the topic before. Moreover, there has been considerable improvement on the article after this discussion. Sorry for the bad nomination. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - 1) That's not a valid rationale for deletion. 2) There are a dozen different language articles written on the individual, and as a rule of thumb, before you nominate a German for deletion check the German article. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article does not meet Wikipedia's credibility standards whatsoever. There are no references at all. I'm not active anywhere other than the English wiki but still will have a look at the German wiki. Also, the page is one of the oldest pending review from a new page reviewer. The article is a complete stub regardless of this discussion. If not deletion, the article will need considerable improvement to survive. Yashovardhan (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles do not meet or fail to meet notability standards; subjects do. A poor article on a notable subject should usually be improved, rather than deleted. I encourage you to more thoroughly review WP:BEFORE, which, among other things, advises users to check versions of the article in non-English languages. Machine translation (you should be using Google Chrome anyway) is usually sufficient to tell whether it is a substantial and sourced article. You pretty evidently didn't follow the BEFORE steps with this one. It's not a terrible mistake to make, and it's pretty common for editors to confuse the state of the article with the notability of the subject, but that's just part of getting used to the whole process. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - I am not an expert on archaeology but ten seconds on Google Books finds a festschrift written to mark his 75th birthday and quotes like that he "established the chronology of the European Bronze Age and Iron Age". That sounds pretty notable to me. There are articles on him in fourteen languages and about that many articles link to his page. That sounds like evidence of notability, too. I recommend that this nomination be withdrawn. Blythwood (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Stub is not a valid criterion for deletion. Neither is "no interest". RoCo (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2017 (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.