Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najib Razak controversies


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Najib Razak controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This page violates WP:POV and WP:BLP, and the split from Najib Razak was done without discussion or consensus. Although it's possible a page could exist for a politician, as with Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi, at present these controversies can fit more readily into the existing page for Najib Razak, in agreement with WP:CRIT. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per FAFO. Bearian (talk)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  18:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative article, checks all the checkboxes. I would say it isn't violating anything. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 07:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Seems well-sourced, GNG is met. Was expecting this to be a list, but it actually has prose and describes each "event", looks ok to me. The split seems fine, this describes in some detail each item. I think it would make the main article too bulky to have kept it all there. The split was ok. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.