Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megdet Rahimkulov

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 03:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Megdet Rahimkulov

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No hint of person's significance. Huge problems with WP:GNG and WP:BIO, poor sources Bash7oven (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unreliable reasoning! He is clearly a notable businessman as sources shows! —Natalie RicciNatalie 00:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the sources, or at least those that can be considered as reliable, actually show is our subject's lack of significant, independent notability. We get the typical claim that a laconic Forbes appearance in the 2022 listing of billionaires constitutes a "profile"; it does not, although the citation appears twice in the article under different titles. Then, we are presented with the Hungarian edition of Forbes that carried in 2021 a report about the financial woes of Gattyán Rahimkulov; we can locate various online reports about other persons that mention the name "Rahimkulov" but are not about Megdet, such as this one about billionaire and politician György Gattyán's connections to the Rahimkulovs. Sourcing then degenerates into pure irrelevancy such as an OTPBank link that does not even mention "Rahimkulov" or this out-of-sevice url. What we have here is a failure of the notability claim. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the source analysis above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 16 May 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.