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 redirect to National Library of Finland. History will be left to facilitate a merge if desired, as some editors expressed interest in this. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KANTO – National Agent Data[edit]

KANTO – National Agent Data (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability found for this. Can perhaps be redirected to National Library of Finland if people think that is useful? Otherwise deletion seems best. Fram (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The KANTO – National Agent Data page was requested so I do not understand why you would immediately need to delete it. Deletion does not seem appropriate for the moment. This page is important giving additional background information to the Wikidata item KANTO (Q104089764) and the wikidata property KANTO ID (P8980). On the page tHere are links to external pages providing addtional information which was not copied to Wikipedia. If additional content is required it is possible to do. Please, end the deletion process and approve the page. Saarik (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested by whom? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was an anonymous request Saarik (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a true need for the Finnish KANTO page, since it is an authority ID that is widely used on pages of Finnish publishers (see, for instance Erik_Allardt in Finnish (Suomi)). It would seem appropriate to have a similar item in English especially because there are people in Finland whose Finnish is not as good as their English. (Reetakuu)

• Redirect Based on a rather brief an informal search for sources (the name makes this difficult to search for, as it has more common meanings in both English and Finnish), I don't think this is going to pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest merging this into National Library of Finland for now. Note how many other authority files e.g. in Authority control#Examples also simply link to libraries. Later, if sufficient independent coverage materializes, a dedicated article might then be split off. I'd be happy to change my !vote to keep, though, if someone can point out independent coverage. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Kanto page is very similar in status and content as the corresponding database page of the German National library Integrated Authority File which was used as an example in creation of the Kanto page. If that page is ok, then the Kanto page should be, too. That page has existed since 2012 and is not much longer, either.

If similarities of the name is an issue, the title could be finaf which is the official code name for KANTO registered by LOC similar to "gnd" for the Gemeinsame Normdatei. If deletion is still supported, this content should be included in the National library page, and then a redirect added Saarik (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" does not hold much weight in AfD discussions: there's plenty of content in Wikipedia and some is bound to be less than stellar. For GND in specific, I completely agree that the en-wiki page is far from great. The de-wiki page de:Gemeinsame Normdatei has a lot more references, even if it too seems to be lacking in the independent-coverage department. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wow, this is really amazing. How can you even require to have many references to a new page which is just created??? The gemeimsame Normdate page has existed almost 10 years so of course it has references. Saarik (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to misunderstand. A page should not even be created unless there are 3rd party references to the subject of the page. We're not alking about references to the page itself, but the subject. When it doesn't, the material is best included in an existing article,and there's a good one for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: pinging DGG, since you're an librarian by profession and you know the true value of an authority file. Your assessment/opinion/vote will have a weightage over here. - Hatchens (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see two ways to go on this . Our article on National Library of Finland it is extremely weak & could use the content. . The only language where there's a good article is in fi.wp , and though I will try to work with any n a field I know if i know even a little of the language, this one would be a problem. The Finniish WP article gives one reference, https://tietolinja.kansalliskirjasto.fi/2020-2/2002-ajankohtaista/ , but it is in the National library's house magazine. I would be surprised if there were much else, but there is one library science journal, Kirjastotiede ja informatiikka and an information science one, I Informaatiotutkimus., See also https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/10239/thesis.pdf?sequence=2.

The other possibility, which could be pursued atmthe sametime, is to turn the list of national authority lists into a combination article. There will be the same problem in trying to make articles on most of them.

DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did a slightly more comprehensive search of Finnish language academic resources than in my original comment above, and there are a few Finnish language publications that have passing mentions of KANTO, e.g. ^[1][2]. But these are indeed very passing. The first one states that they used KANTO data in constructing another thing, and the second has a passing mention that translates along the lines of "Work on ontologies has continued in the National Library of Finland. For example, Finto's new KANTO ontology covers the authoritative names of the agents relating to materiel published in Finland, produced during the description of the national bibliography, including the authors of musical materiel" (the original Finnish sentence is either extremely confusing or has some mistake in it, I can't quite tell). A general list of national authority files sounds reasonable, so I'd also be happy with that as an alternative. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to National Library of Finland; it's an aspect of their work, and independent notability is not at all apparent. Sandstein 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to National Library of Finland, per nominator's rarionale and DGG. Not enough GNG coverage for a standalone article, per Ljleppan, but worth keeping given the state of the National Library of Finland page. Pilaz (talk) 04:55, 30 January 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.