Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yash Moradiya (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Vrischikasana. Star Mississippi 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Moradiya (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)

Written by an Elbatli sock; originally nominated for deletion by another Elbatli sock; AfD discussion had two 'keep' !votes by further Elbatli socks. Probable UPE. Non-sock participation was two keeps and one delete; renominating in hopes of a more rigorous process. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and India. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Again? We just had this on Nov 12th. No new sources have turned up in the week or so since last AfD. Suggest SALT at this point as well. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The last discussion was closed as 'Keep' - sorry, I should have made that explicit. I'm renominating it because the discussion was mostly socks talking to each other. It's a UPE tactic - sock 1 writes article, sock 2 noms it for deletion, socks 3 and 4 turn up to !vote keep. The article is then less likely to be deleted, because it has already survived an AfD discussion once. This particular sockfarm has been doing a lot of this sort of thing lately, with a number of successes. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that explains it. Socks are getting to be a nuisance here. It's also getting to be a red flag, if a whole bunch of socks turn up in AfD, it means the article doesn't have enough notability cred to stand so they try to prop it up. For what it's worth, that's another thing I consider when looking at articles in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He also has an instagram channel that hangs lots of importance on the world record, so I suspect this is somewhat promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Vrischikasana. WP:BIO1E and WP:ATD apply. He seems to only be known for the world record, so a single sentence in the article on the Yoga pose will suffice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an acceptable compromise, I wasn't aware that the pose had an article. !vote changed above. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy ping of User:LordVoldemort728, User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, and User:Sirdog who all made legitimate arguments in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 23:07, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not a case of WP:BLP1E, as that only comes into playif a person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. There is enough WP:SIGCOV already in the article that the subject would not be considered WP:LOWPROFILE. Frank Anchor 23:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All eight sources in the article are simply reporting the world record – this is the very definition of BLP1E BIO1E (and WP:REFBOMBing). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Criteria 2 and 3 of BLP1E are not met, and the policy requires ALL three listed criteria to be met for it to bar persons from having a standalone article. Frank Anchor 13:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Should have caught this first time, but the relevant notability guideline is WP:BIO1E. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vrischikasana, as per Wjemather. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Vrischikasana. An analysis of the sources (most of them of dubious quality) shows a one-time event that doesn't make a person notable for a separate Wikipedia page.Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 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.