Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murad Mirzayev

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 keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Mirzayev[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:SOLDIER, nothing of notability detailed in the article, subject was of no military or public note, died in no unusual or notable circumstances, and was just one of the several hundred soldiers killed during the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes; his death is not even worthy of a mention on the main article. The article itself seems to be a bad faith creation made in response to the existence of the Kyaram Sloyan article. The creator of the Murad Mirzayev article has stated in an AfD that the Sloyan article should be deleted [1] yet (after making that opinion) created this article, despite its subject's lack of notability compared to the events detailed in the Sloyan one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator made a mistake claiming that Mirzayev fails WP:SOLDIER. Actually, he is notable according to this rule, because he was awarded his nation's highest award for valour. Murad Mirzayev is a National Hero of Azerbaijan that is the highest award of Azerbaijan. Comparison with article about Sloyan is unacceptable according to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sloyan is not notable as military person. He was just a soldier whose death is used in propaganda against Azerbaijan. But Mirzayev is notable as military person due to his award of National Hero of Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such a rule. WP:Soldier just assumes that " individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour". It looks like Mirzayev is the exception as he has no sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to make Murad Mirzayev an exception. There are enough verifiable independent, reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. If you don't agree with them because of your personal opinion it is not a problem of Wikipedia.--Interfase (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Azerbaijan is a Family dictatorship and the award was due to propagandist purposes. The Mirzayev has no notability, it is even unknown, for what he was awarded. we have only few Azeri propagandist sources on him. no neutral reliable sources about Mirzayev. OptimusView (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to ignore such arguments due to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you don't like Azerbaijan (that is republic btw, not dictatorship as you think) and its heroes it's your problem, not Wikipeida's that has clear rule that military people awarded their nation's highest award for valour are notable. For what directly he was awarded cannot make an effect on his notability. It's discussion about the content. --Interfase (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just my personal opinion but a fact [2]. Azerbaijan is also not a democracy [3]. Compare with North Korea. OptimusView (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't discuss the issues around human rights in Azerbaijan. As a fact Azerbaijan is republic and exactly as a republic Azerbaijan is member of United Nations. That is fact. The accusations on violation of democracy in some country cannot make an affect on the notability of that country's people. --Interfase (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it is a dictatorship it affects on awarding. A hero in a dictatorship is not the same a hero in a democratic country. Per WP:Soldier, "individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." No even one independent reliable source writes about Mirzayev. That's all! OptimusView (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what you quoted, is "in general". Secondly, there are enough verifiable independent (Azerbaijan press not depends on Mirzayev), reliable sources about Murad Mirzayev covered his biography. There presence in article is enough to have an article about the hero. And I cannot agree with the opinion that a hero in Azerbaijan cannot be notable because some issues about democracy. Try to change a guide, because in this link I see National Hero of Azerbaijan, which means that they are notable for Wikipedia. --Interfase (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "National Hero of Azerbaijan" is not notable, it is a propaganda award not connected to actual military valor. The article does not even detail how or when or where this individual died or what actions he did to deserve any award. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know that he died during April 2016 clashes in Nagorno Karabakh. That is enough. Details are the topic of another discussion and their absence (for now) cannot be a reason for deletion. As a fact in Wikipedia National Heroes of Azerbaijan are notable. You may agree with this or not. You may call this "propaganda award" but it is personal and not reliable opinion of Wikipedia user that should be ignored. As I see this nomination is typical example of Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Users who want to delete the article are known for their pro-Armenian edits in Wikipedia and they don't want to see here an article about National Heroes of Azerbaijan because of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But such behavior is against our rules and not acceptable. --Interfase (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He won his country's highest military honor and the references in the article say so, and therefore meets WP:SOLDIER. We do not limit our coverage of notable soldiers only to those who fought for liberal western democracies. We have plenty of biographies of soldiers from countries widely considered by many to be dictatorships. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~(Removing vote on the basis that Sloyan article was kept with no consensus.) : I am using the same rational as the one on the article about Sloyan. Also, notability should be earned by more than the importance a head of state give to one of his personals. Azerbaijan main export is its culture, and there are Azerbaijani artists more notable because of earned popularity (not standing on a head of state given importance) but no such coverage. While this qualifies in paper to WP:Soldiers, it sure does not in spirit. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't speak about artists, but military people. If they earned their state's highest award it means that they did something very notable for their state and nation, for its defence. That's why we make tham notable for Wikipedia, espessialy those who are officialy heroes. That's why Murad Mitzayev is notable. --Interfase (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did "officially heroic" Mirzayev do that was "very notable for their state and nation"? Wikipedia should not be a propaganda outlet for Azerbaijan - the status of military awards when deciding on notability should be based on common sense and real military valor or achievement, they should not be hijacked by dictatorships who hand them out for purely propaganda purposes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he received his nation's highest award it means that he did something special during the clashes that was a reason for his awarding. Detalis as I said is a topic of another discussion about the improvement of the article. The absense of the details, which may even be classified information, are not a reason for such nomination. If you don't like this award also could not be a reason. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While WP:Soldier to access notability is used, what is missed, is that policies like these in real life, are not static they change to correspond in letter to what they were intended for but will never be able to fully word (limitations of axiomic systems [4], and to prevent people from exploiting weaknesses often without such intentions). In spirit this article plainly fails the very principles which motivates to even develop something such as WP:Soldier. The same rational should be used to delete this article as those here [5], for another article from your opponents, which you voted to delete. You rightly claimed in Sloyan case that he did not receive the highest honour to meet WP:Soldier, what if the Armenian president grants it? Do you see where I am going? What if it is later uncovered that Alyiev granted such honours to fabricate a notability in response to Sloyan coverage in the media (he, afteral, received this honour the same day Saloyan article was created on Wikipedia)? It is obvious that members of the community will have no choice but to do what computer scientists do, by patching policies (same way software are updated) to prevent such cases. The hierarchic tree if added on pages like WP:Soldier, would be such a patch. Since his entire notability is ensured by one single honour received for yet obscure reasons, and nothing higher in the hierarchic feeds it (above categories), it (notability) will starve. This is different than Azerbaijani artists notability which is won by popular acclaim and not standing on one man decisions. Would be a nice thing to see both sides changing their vote to have both articles deleted. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If the other fellow named Sloyan receives his country's highest military honor, then of course, I will support keeping an article about him. This is not a game of nationalistic tit-for-tat, and I wish that these two countries would stop their futile battling. But until then, we should accept biographies of the soldiers on either side who are granted their country's highest military honors. As for artists of any nationality, we have a notability guideline for them, which should be applied in an even-handed fashion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Futile battling". How condescending of you. It will be worth a week's ban to call you a cretin. This issue has nothing to do with "sides" as you claim. We have many articles on Wikipedia about individuals who fought for, and received honors from, regimes that most would consider abominations. That is not this AfD issue - those individuals have details about what they did to receive their awards, they will have a proper military biography, the awards they got had military justification. There is nothing here like that. No details about what Mirzayev did, no detail even on why, how, where, or when he died. There is no suggestion he was doing anything covert that required his actions to be kept secret. All he did was die - not an insignificant thing, but no more significant that that of the several hundred others who also died in the same short conflict. Using the award issue as a way to keep this article is an abuse of the guidance, and I think an abuse of all the genuine acts of military valor that resulted in genuine awards. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We know what Mirzayev did. He distinguished himself in the battle to protect the territorial integrity of his country and protect the civilian population of neighbouring districts. It is for this medal of National Hero is awarded. If we don't know any special details it is not a reason for deletion. The details may even be classified information. Why we should know this. This arguments could be significant if we nominate this article for Featured article. For now the fact about awarding him with his state's highest wawrd is enough to call Mirzayev notable. You maynot like him and his award, but it is Wikipedia and it may contain information that you don't like and cannot accept. --Interfase (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interfase, I was wondering if you were also replying me. I am not questioning the factuality of what you wrote, never actually did. What I wrote, I also found it from an article titled: The rules are principles:The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. Policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles. They are not intended to provide an exact or complete definition of the principles in all circumstances. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion. [6] I strongly suggest you read the rest of the article. The underlying principles assessing notability (like I mentioned above) are here discarded by simply using wp:soldier. Also WP:FATRAT might be helpful in this situation. I do understand your frustration, because neither article would logically qualify. Notability will justify something being said in a main article, but this alone does not justify either of them to have their articles standalone because of what was raised here. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER.Abbatai 21:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a recipient of Azerbaijan's highest award for valour, just I would support keeping an article about a recipient of Armenia's highest award for valour, or North Korea's or (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) Nazi Germany's. And in none of those cases would I expect any sources from outside the soldier's home country. It's tiresomely obvious that nationalist tit-for-tat games are being played here, and I would expect any protestations to the contrary to fall on deaf ears among neutral editors. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as I nearly closed this since it's a week, article is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Optimus.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 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.