Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehman Aliyev

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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehman Aliyev[edit]

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

Nothing currently actually suggesting better for any applicable notability such as WP:GNG, my searches have only found news mentions at News, nothing else convincing of solid independent notability and its improvements. Listed award is not convincing of actually keeping this. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting very used to this nominator's impenetrable use of English, but the statement that he "only found news mentions at News" must take the biscuit as one of the most absurd that I have seen in a deletion nomination. What else would we expect to find at "News"? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I should note this IP has hounded me including after I specifically asked for them to cease, they have nothing but grossly unnecessary criticisms. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have desisted from posting on your talk page since you said that I was unwelcome there, but you have no right to prevent me from taking part in deletion discussions, and pointing out logical errors in statements made there. If you want to avoid criticism then just stop acting in a way that deserves criticism, as many people have been advising you to do for many years. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually any heated and vulgar comments at me are prohibited anywhere, 86.17.222.157, please see WP:HOUNDING and please take this as a formal warning to not incessantly hound me. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out errors is not hounding. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but hounding me at every place and saying the exact opposite thing like the comment above is. Simply face it, you obviously have a disdain for me and yet you continue, so I firmly ask to stay away from that regardless. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, please don't take this as "hounding", but I genuinely can't make out what you are asking of me. If you are asking me not to take part in the same deletion discussions as you then the answer has to be "no", because no participant has the right to pick and choose who else should take part in a discussion. If you are asking me not to point out errors in your statements or ask for clarification when I can't understand them then it's also a "no", because that is an important part of the discussion process. I will, however, try to word my comments in a gentler way if they upset you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies to anyone else reading this for conducting a private conversation here, but SwisterTwister has asked me not to post on his talk page, so I couldn't post there) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Okay, deciphering TwistedSister's comment "only news found in News" seems to mean that there are plenty of sources showing news about other things that were written/directed/edited by this person, but none that are ABOUT this person. So that opens the question, is a prolific WRITER of news who has won an award regarding that writing considered notable? I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt here, especially since the subject is from a non-English news source, and it's a good idea to fight systemic bias in this area. Fieari (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the Google News search linked in the nomination statement are mostly sources neither written/directed/edited by this person nor about this person, but are independent sources that quote this person. The fact that there are 16 such sources found in English would lead me to suspect that there must be many more in Azerbaijani and Russian, which, if it could be shown, would lead to a pass of WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1, "widely cited by peers or successors". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SwisterTwister's reasons for nominations can be disputed, and the statement "only news found in News" is rather odd. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the news note: This person seems to be a regularly quoted figure in a number of Azerbaijani/East European news outlets, where he is often identified as head of the Turan news agency. ("Mehman Aliyev" with quotes searched in Google News) I see similar results in Scholar, (I know, limiting my search to google, what a plebeian thing to do), and from this I would conclude that he is considered to have some facet of authority with regard to domestic and foreign Azerbaijani political topics. I can't vote either way just yet, but if I find anything I'll post it/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST. The English sources (not just their number, but the context) indicate a certain level of notability which clears the GNG, and I'm taking it on trust that a lot more sources would be found in the original languages; someone doesn't become a less notable commentator just because they aren't often cited in the Western media. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 13:49, 1 June 2016 (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.