Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salakhat Agaev

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. Consensus isn't clear here Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salakhat Agaev[edit]

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

Not notable Lida Vorig (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered by multiple non-trivial newspaper articles(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) as well as meeting WP:ATHLETE by playing for FC Inter Baku, a team in a national top-level division. The ruwiki article is quite well sourced and can be used to expand this article further. cab (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Russian article looks to be AfD'd too Spiderone (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that AfD has a total of three participants after a week of debate, one of whom explicitly stated "Keep" and another leaning in that direction ... cab (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having had news coverage is not a reason for inclusion. Lida Vorig (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources is actually the cornerstone of the general notability guidelines. Trivial news coverage may not show notability, but to say that news coverage isn't a reason for inclusion is totally incorrect. Camw (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, user talk is seems to be loving flagging Azerbaijan articles without knowing the purpose of any of this articles and arguing that is not relevant for English Wikipedia. This user also has have previously warned about flagging Azerbaijani articles. So moderators, should be check her background first before doing any action.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is this person's notability again? Lida Vorig (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league, and fails WP:GNG as hasn't received non-trivial media attention. See WP:NTEMP for reasons why passing, run-of-the-mill sports reports & the like isn't considered significant enough. Giant Snowman 13:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete- if these mentions were anything more than trivial then they would have been incorporated into the article already. Spiderone (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where exactly does the notability policy mention anything like this? Wikipedia has no deadline. The mumber of Russian speakers here on enwiki AfD is limited, our time is limited, and suddenly eight articles require immediate attention ... cab (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Russian article is on the verge of being deleted. Spiderone (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Huh? That discussion has no new comments in 5 days and no consensus to delete. And again, where does any deletion policy mention anything like "if these mentions were anything more than trivial then they would have been incorporated into the article already"? cab (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't but WP:GNG requires significant coverage. I can't be sure that the coverage is significant yet. Spiderone (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If you are incapable of judging the depth of coverage in the sources, what grounds do you have to make any comment at all??? cab (talk) 08:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well unfortunately if there is no proof of notability then there is a strong chance this will get deleted. If the depth of coverage isn't made obvious then we must assume it isn't that deep. Spiderone (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played in a pro league.--EchetusXe 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per cab. Neftchi (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2009 (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.