Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation)

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. Sandstein 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation)

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

MOS:DABRL says that there should be some scope of creation of the red links in a disambiguation page. This page has 1 blue link and 1 red link, and the red link is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, so having a dab page is not required. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidate for Template:db-disambig. A hatnote should be placed at primary though. Boleyn (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Tangential discussion on nominator and AfDs

Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator.

Shoaib Khan (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Camp Echo (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Keiler (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Gholam Faruq (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Padshah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
Daud Shah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
Khan v. Bush June 22, 2012 Not closed yet

Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that mean the AfD should be closed? "Pepper" @ 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you examine the other five AfD discussions. That should show a pattern. Beyond that, I think we need to do what we can to discourage unnecessary AfD nominations, and encourage thoughtfully prepared AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do not WP:AOBF the nominator. All the AFDs were valid at the time of nomination, it was withdrawn by the nominator as the pages were improved after nomination. This on the other hand clearly fits for speedy deletion. It would be nice if you could provide any valid arguement for keeping this, other than WP:AOBF ? --DBig Xray 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this last comment as the start of a constructive discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I was trying to point out was that just because some of the other nominations were improved to the point of keeping, it does not mean that all the nominations are thoughtless or incorrect. If these "unnecessary AfD nominations" were never nominated, but PRODed or speedied, then perhaps the reviewing admin would not have found the other links which have been added to the already closed AfDs. Then, the wiki would have lost a perfectly good disambiguation pages because the user did not try to get community consensus. "Pepper" @ 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If AfD nominations are good for the community, should we start a bot making them? Would we get improvement of the encyclopedia? Or is editorial time a finite resource? Unscintillating (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second User:Pepper's arguement here. I am rather surprised to see the remark by Unscintillating and I am still pondering how does Unscintillating's opening comment starts a constructive discussion. --DBig Xray 15:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, new page patrolling at the new page log is the substitute for sending all articles to AfD. Articles are reviewed by the community, and if they do not meet inclusion requirements, they are either speedied, PRODed, or sent to AfD (as these were). Though I do see how you are arriving your POV, this article does seem to meet the deletion criteria; I'm not sure why you are sticking with it so rigidly, especially as this is clearly not a bad-faith nomination."Pepper" @ 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pepper. This page seems to have escaped new page patrolling as the creator has WP:Autopatrolled Rights. Now can we address the page rather than the nominator please. Please feel free to hat or callapse this tangential discussion not relevant to this AfD--DBig Xray 10:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete by Template:db-disambig. The other red link points to a non notable person. --DBig Xray 21:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that an edit above has removed a !vote
*Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator.
Unscintillating (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary dab page, redlinked article won't ever be created. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2012 (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.