Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashad Nasirov

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. Notability concerns relating to WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV have not been adequately addressed in the discussion and the article remains an unreferenced BLP. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Nasirov[edit]

[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)

The work of the deputy chairman of aztv in Azerbaijan does not make it encyclopedic, because in that television the vice-chairmen change every 4 or 5 years. Doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From his article: "On 7 November 2016, he was awarded with the honorary title of "Honored journalist" by the executive order of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, for his services in TV and radio sphere in Azerbaijan."GorgonaJS (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in a very bad condition, so it would be correct to delete it as it violates the style of the encyclopedia. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a reason for deletion. See WP:PROBLEM and WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:SIGCOV. Essentially he is a government appointed journalist (no separation of government and media in Azerbaijan), and the same said government honored him with the title "honored journalist"; an act which could be seen as nepotism and puffery. Because the honor itself is not widely recognized and lacks independence I don't think there is a good argument here for notability. This is further evidenced by the fact that the subject lacks any significant independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2021 (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.