Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goettems (surname)

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 delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goettems (surname)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article looks fine on the surface, falls apart on further examination. First of all, the name fails WP:NNAME. More importantly, almost nothing comes up when I google anything with "Goettems" or "Goettems family" in it. The sources seem to be lists and mentions, nothing substantial or establishing notability. Several assertions throughout the article make me think that it could have been created by a family member (no solid evidence for this, of course). Just seems like a totally unremarkable family tree. I could probably write something similar about my own family and make it as verbose. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Germany, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve as necessary, don’t delete. The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to provide information, not to withhold information. I think the major problem with all of these similar deletion nominations is with the policy itself. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to change the policy, you have to do so in the right venues. Article creation should not precede such a change. Every one of your arguments so far is invalid. Geschichte (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point to this policy WP:IAR since I think the other rules that are being cited here are bureaucratic, legalistic, and are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If the information is accurate and backed up with a reference, an article really should not be deleted. It should definitely be improved upon as additional sources are found. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You think notability guidelines are bureaucratic? I cannot find any sources online about this family. It is a random family tree possibly created by a member that does not belong on Wikipedia. Accurate, referenced, and notable, which you have omitted, are the basic critera. I don't know why you think notability doesn't matter. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Geschichte (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NNAME. If there's nobody significant by that name, then the article has no basis for existing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2024 (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.