Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Ahmadzadeh

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. Although a Keep supporter provided some sources, the consensus from the discussion was that these do not provide the significant coverage needed to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Ahmadzadeh[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet any of the requirements for WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was notable in the pre-internet era. He is described in the encyclopedia "Qazax mahalının alimləri". Some sources can be found online in native language: axar.az, aztehsil.com, bakuexo.az, apress.az, axar.az, Mia.az, azadliq.org. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly fails WP:NPROF. none of the sources in the article nor the source brought up in the discussion supports an argument for WP:GNG, two sources in the article describe how the subject was fired (possibly describing a different Ahmad Ahmadzadeh that was head of a water company and not a medical professor?) and one how it died without any further detail. Overall it seems the article is poorly sourced, with little source material and no indication of notability. --hroest 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, thanks to SpotsOlympic and the sources they've linked to above NemesisAT (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by both onel5969 and Hannes Röst, what criterion under WP:NACADEMIC is met here? Was there an RFC I wasn’t aware of? This is blatantly not meeting WP:PROF. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The first source linked seems like a press release. The claim about being in an encyclopedia is not verifiable. Please provide an analysis of the links cited - which are SIGCOV and reliable? And proof that he has an entry in the encyclopedia. Ping me if this is done and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 22:40, 28 July 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.