Biodiesel by region: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 13:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:DINC small jars t c 16:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment , Cambodia , China , Belgium , Czech Republic , Finland , France , Germany , Canada , Argentina , Brazil ,  and Costa Rica .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong , Indonesia , Malaysia , Pakistan , Singapore , Thailand , Italy , Lithuania , Spain ,  and Uruguay .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Not valid deletion rationale.  Being incomplete and outdated are reasons to update an article and improve its coverage, not reasons to delete.  Nearly all articles meet some definition of "incomplete and outdated".  Folly Mox ( talk ) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did not say it was incomplete - my point was that a lot of it is uncited.  How about I merge it to Biodiesel ?  If the info was there more people would see it and might tidy it I guess.  Chidgk1 ( talk ) 14:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to biodiesel .  It's worth noting the above keeps don't even comment on the article itself.  This roughly fits under WP:NLIST 's purview in that it deals with cross categorizations like this. I don't really see sources talking about the subject by region as a whole. Instead you either have biodiesel itself or discussion largely focused on individual countries like Biodiesel in the United States . It's an issue of splitting too much and not having sources appropriate at that level. If a certain region is worth mentioning in the main biodiesel article, splitting, linking to it, etc. then do that and skip this intermediate article. This article though is largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE by nature in the cross categorizations without the needed sources I mentioned earlier. No prejudice against deletion either since people would likely just end up at the biodiesel term in the search box first anyways rather than typing out the by region part. KoA ( talk ) 01:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would have voted delete from the start if this was the rationale. My original !vote was only addressing the invalidty of Chidgk1's. small jars t c 13:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll add that I didn't see anything justifying a merge, hence the redirect above. Still nothing against deletion here either. KoA ( talk ) 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 18:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] redirect to Biofuels by region , merging what is referenced. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk ) 21:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That article includes other fuels that aren't biodiesel and honestly runs into a lot of the same issues this one did. Better to just redirect to the topic of biodiesel specifically instead of to another shaky list-style article. KoA ( talk ) 21:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep is simplest, with note that development/updating is desired and that wp:MERGE to Biofuels by region with development/updating could usefully be done, at editors' discretion.   If a merger is appropriate, there is no requirement that it be implemented immediately by the AFD closer;  it suffices to post notices that a merger should be implemented.  As pointed out, nomination's reasons are invalid.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram ( talk • contribs ) 18:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] At this point we don't really seem to have anyone arguing to keep the article in terms of WP:PAG at least.  This one is like the other initial keeps that focus on the initial nomination being invalid and not actually commenting on the notability of the topic, but also using WP:USEFUL , and common AfD argument to avoid.  Instead, the topic itself is not a notable list in terms of WP:NLIST policy.  If it's not notable at that level of spliting, we don't just let it sit in case someone wants to use the content.  If it was redirected, the article history would still be there anyways.  I already reviewed the article in my earlier ! vote, and there wasn't anything really to merge.  That's why most WP:PAG-focused comments are looking at redirect to biodiesel or outright deletion.  The only focused discussion so far has been on where to redirect, and the only other option brought up so far besides biodiesel being Biofuels by region that was less suitable for being too broad.  KoA ( talk ) 18:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: One more try… Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  08:37, 15 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus