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. - Caknuck 01:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans von Boetticher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested Prod - This page has been tagged for lack of sources and no assertion of notability since September of 2006 [1]. Currently, there are two sources listed. One of them is in German and the other is a link to buy his books. I beleive it should be deleted as there are not multiple non trivial sources that confirm his notability. Cyrus Andiron 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a number of species for which he is the taxon author (see what links here). All taxa are considered notable by definition, and so far this has extended to the taxon authors. If the species' taxobox has a red link, the author article is bound to be recreated, and this seems an unhelpful way to proceed. Why is a source in German unacceptable for a German person?Jimfbleak.talk.

10:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC))

• Keep For the reasons I give on the talk page. Sorry about the link to Amazon.de, but that is where I found the correct names of his books, so that was my reference. Ideally of course we need someone to write an article on the German wikipedia and we can all copy that. Smallweed 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Mgiganteus1 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Non-addition of information. Or lack of information in a stub article is not reason for deletion. A little googling gives this list of taxa names proposed. A cursory glance tells me that most of these are no longer valid names, but it should tell a casual editor that there is more that needs to be known. Similarly one gets clues from entries in wikispecies and interwiki links. This is apart from a long list of other publications. The subject is dead and therefore links to old books sellers or Amazon should not be considered as vanity. Shyamal 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the article has been improved. Well done to whoever made the improvements. It now mentions some of the animals that he is responsible for naming. As I said, at the time I put the prod tag on there, the article did not assert notability. I guess it only takes an AFD to get people motivated (obviously the tags weren't helping). Also, I checked the German WIkipedia article before I nominated to see if it could be transwikied over to English, but they have a stub as well. The article was dormant for about six months, so it is great to see so many people still interested in improving it. --Cyrus Andiron 17:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a general practice to use AfDs to force article improvement. Shyamal 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to force article improvement. As I said before, the article in its current state did not assert notability or cite any sources. I looked for sources myself, could not find any and thus nominated the article for deletion. After I nominated, someone else knew where to find sources and added them to the article. The article was tagged for six months before I nominated. I did not use the AFD to improve the article. It simply happened that the article was improved during the AFD process. This happens all the time. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag for sources, also. However, if you personally cannot weigh the value of an article, I stand by my original suggestion to ask the birders or other editors (WikiProject:ToL talk page is good), who may weigh the value of an article. The article is small enough and so little has been done that it could simply be re-added, and no harm either way. Still, the author is rather famous in birding circles for his books, and it seems unlikely he meets nonnotability standards. This is something a birder would be able to know and source, especially one of our Continental European birders. KP Botany 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And please don't use AfD to prod for improvement of an article, simply ask the birders or the editors to add information and sources. Please read and respect the box at the top of WP:AfD:
• Keep An inadequate article is better than no article at all. Corvus coronoides Contributions_{Go Blue} 16:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.

KP Botany 00:55, 26 April 2007 (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.