Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuad Alakbarov

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. L Faraone 04:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Alakbarov[edit]

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

Not notable, not neutral, article seems written by someone closely related Zebras234 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is pure blatant lie. I'm not related to him at all. Moreover, article uses very neutral sources and I would ask admins to check Zebras234 as he often sounds and looks like a sockpuppet.--Azerifactory (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks only show lack of objectivity and a close connection to the subject.--(User talk:Zebras234)•

Looking at your contributions Zebras234, it seems fairly obvious why someone might accuse you of being a sock. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fuad Viento was the original name of this article. According to a post by Azerifactory to my Talk page in March of this year, he is the subject of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by user Yacatisma, so it's true it was not written by Azerifactory, although he has contributed to it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting very far afield from whether the subject is notable, but neither I nor Azerifactory ever said he created the article. As I stated, he said he was the subject of the article. My comment was in direct response to Azerifactory's comment here that he was not related to the subject. Hard to be more related than be the person. Indeed, I find Azerifactory's comment just below this to be odd. I don't know what he is saying is the "mistake".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took his comment as to not being related to the person who created the article, Yacatisma. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just finding unfair, when articles such as this deleted, while articles like Robina Qureshi, which contains far less quotes and sources and poorly written are available.--Azerifactory (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was mistake and I think current article name is correct. However, you can contact yourself author to ask but since he goes under that name in other websites, that is correct.--Azerifactory (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.This article was created by a user blocked for sockpuppetry. Can't see any more than questionable notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.2.255.244 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, I'm not a sockpuppet, admins can check if they want. Moreover, it is very strange that this IP suddenly appeared just to vote in this, while being rarely inactive over these years. Now, your IP's actions sound like sockpuppet.--Azerifactory (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely non-notable. Apart from being born abroad and speaking a number of langauages (which is not notable) there is nothing here at all to even hint at notability. He went to school and university. He joined a party and some campaigns. He has views on political issues. So what? He's no differnet from millions of others in Scotland and the UK. Emeraude (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quite clearly non-notable, despite the bombardment of low quality sources in the article. The essays that he's written, while they may be insightful, are not independent of the subject and therefore to not count towards meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I hope he is now aware that he is not the only activist alone in his quest to save his own Wikipedia page, I discovered this article this morning when the another "activist" tweeted Fuad's tweet in response to his own unrelated nomination, whilst he asks his WP:SPA lackeys to create new accounts, feebly attempt to keep vote and accusing me of locking his page up when I had to request page protection to his AfD nomination due to this. Yet this so-called "anti-bullying" campaigner go out and namecall me and another delete voter via twitter and Facebook a venomous troll, jealous with boring lives, liar, unprofessional whilst tweeting to Wikipedia to try get me banned and expects anybody who knows him to think he is famous enough for Wikipedia whilst liking and retweeting his own posts and claiming that karma will get me soon if this article gets deleted. Yet I never have anything to do with any one of his regular (unsubstantiated) past troll campaign as he claims to nor have met him before. Not forgetting that this is coming from a 41 year old, according to his page.
Delete, for the same reason in my above nomination in terms of quality of sources which like my nomination, are too trivial to make the notability any useful, though it is in a better quality to the one that I nominated AfD (as above). Donnie Park (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet notability requirements as per searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 6 November 2015 (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.