Benutzer Diskussion:Veverve/OCCA

Hello again @Maphry, G-41614:! I have prepared my AfD here. Could you give me your feedback on it (form and content)? Thanks in advance. --Veverve (Diskussion) 01:19, 10. Jun. 2022 (CEST) Beantworten

Hm. I perhaps could help a bit with the language, but as to content, Maphry, if so inclined, might be more competent. For the time being I think I've read worse. You could, however, simply state "Relevanz im Artikel nicht dargestellt" (notability not shown in article), or "Keine Relevanz, EN fehlen" (no notability whatsoever, unsourced), add your signature and be done with it until someone asks for your reasoning or, as you already wrote this, link to your translated AfD. You can certainly be more brief, by merely saying it's not mentioned even in articles about some of their primates. A few points right now, if I may. There is no point in mentioning articles from en:wp. As rude as it might read, the de:wp mostly does not care about what the en:wp says. Also, I might be wrong, but one of the websites you use to argue for deletion clearly states that at one point this group was officially incorporated, possibly making it notable according to the criteria of the de:wp at some point. It definitely existed, even officially so. In the de:wp, once established notability does not cease to exist merely because the object of the article has ceased to exist. Like a person who has passed on, the article will be changed from "is" to "was", but it will not be deleted on those grounds. I wouldn't use "supposedly" (angeblich), either, as your source clearly states it existed, but that is, of course, up to you. There is, however, an argument against deletion due to proven existence and incorporation, albeit being delinquient. Whether that would be sufficient to fulfill RK#RG, and if the source is sufficient proof thereof, will be up to the admin who decides, though, and whoever might care enough to chime in. Personally, I don't know. For, now, with regards, --G-41614 (Diskussion) 08:28, 10. Jun. 2022 (CEST) Beantworten

I would also suggest to make it short. When you look at the style we have here in deWP to make Löschdiskussionen, people do not like to read long texts, but short reasonings they can act on (e.g. provide additional sources to prove RK). So I would use something like: "Relevanz im Artikel nicht dargestellt. Bezüglich Relevanz siehe Analyse möglicher Quellen: Benutzer:Veverve/OCCA. Meiner Ansicht nach nicht ausreichend um Relevanz zu erzeugen." (Relevance not shown. Concerning Relevance see the analysis of possible sources *link*. In my opinion not enough to create relevance). That should be enough to set things in motion. For this you use the text and simply go on this site: Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._Juni_2022. Click on "Einen neuen Kandidaten Eintragen", plug in the site title in the headline and your short argument with your signature in the textbox. And then you include in the article itself the template "Löschbegründung" as stated under the button for adding a candidate (so the short reasoning as "Begründung"). That should do it. Discussions run at least 7 days, sometimes much longer, and yes, usually the aim is first to improve the article to save it somehow. But let's see how it works.--Maphry (Diskussion) 08:45, 10. Jun. 2022 (CEST) Beantworten