Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Fridman

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Fridman

Globally blocked user User:Dorian Gray Wild, created the article in order to make public relationship to Alex Fridman and to promote him outside Israel. He completely owned this article, and prevented another wikipeds from editing it, by reverting their edits in such edit summaries like "A stable version" without explaining his revertions. Also: This article is of no encyclopedic importance.

Because of this, I'm asking the deletion of this article and also the deletion of related pictures and videos.

Your opinions? זור987 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, זור987,

This AFD is not in the correct format for an article deletion discussion. Please review WP:AFD and follow the directions precisely. Look at other AFDs on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 29 for guidance on how it should appear and be formatted. This AFD is not listed on the daily AFD log page either and no deletion sorting has been done so it is unlikely that other editors will even know this discussion exists. I'd tag this page for deletion and start over from scratch following the guidelines on the AFD instruction page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz: I tried this and non-stop failing to put the article in the daily AFD log page. Can you do this instead? זור987 (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: just because user Dorian Gray Wild apparently had a problematic history for this page, it does not follow that it should be deleted. "This article is of no encyclopedic importance" according to which metrics exactly? The article seems in-depth, it is well sourced, it contains information that's relevant and recent. I don't understand why this needs to be deleted at all? Just improve the parts that Dorian Gray Wild allegedly prevented users from doing, not like that's a problem since he's blocked now. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Disability, Israel, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well-sourced with notability established. Why delete?--Geewhiz (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been well established with reliable sources. Easily passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 31 July 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.