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. ✗plicit 12:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khaan Buuz[edit]

Khaan Buuz (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)

Here v. PROD because the language issue merits conversation. I put their about page through google translate, and they don't make the "largest" claim there, which is the only assertion of notability. I can find the cuisine discussed on travel sites and a guide book listing but no coverage of the company. I don't see that this would be DUE within buuz which covers the food item. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Our coverage of Mongolia is pretty sparse. We should be cautious about deleting this. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would totally agree, but I can't find anything on which to build an article. Do we have any bilingual editors who can help? Definitely cautious of systemic bias, but sometimes we hit a dead end. Star Mississippi 01:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no where even close to enough sourcing to justify an article. Coverage of a topic being sparse means we probably lack expets who can spot hoaxes and inacurate information, so in those cases we need to demand good quality sourcing absolutely. We do a greater disservice with false information than none, and we have our gudlines on corporation coverage to justify an article for a reason, and this article comes no where near close to meeting those guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NCORP by any measure. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 28 February 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.