Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variantology

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Variantology

[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)

Not notable at all. This is a relatively obscure scholarly project. The sources do not even mention the topic, except for two that are directly linked to the person who coined the term (one of them does not contain any actual information). The tag to improve the references has been in place for four years. Google Scholar only seems to mention chapters in books that are edited by the same person. Search for 'desconstruction' on Quora (a seemingly related area) and you'll get 5.300 results, search for 'variantology' and you get none. Japkiw (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:GNG, only two of the sources actually seem to mention the article topic and are quite poor. Article also feels like it was written by someone who has a vested interest in the article and thus doesn't meet Wikipedia:NPOV. GoldMiner24 (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2022 (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.