Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemet Qasimli
- 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Nemet Qasimli
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nemet Qasimli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable. Fails
WP:GNG. Lacks sources, and was likely written in return for undisclosed payments. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Azerbaijan. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. - Kevo327 (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Support Not notable and article not well sourced.--Abrvagl (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)- Keep. Notwithstanding the issues with the article, which is admittedly on the more promotional side but isn't too bad, he does appear to clear WP:GNG. This is an article written about him in a reliable academic biographical dictionary (TEİS) by a Turkish scholar. We tend to consider inclusion here a good predictor of notability on tr.wiki as articles there tend to cite multiple reliable publications. This particular one cites various sources about him, most notably an article in the literary journal Ozan Dünyası. We also understand from the TEİS page that he is discussed in a book by the Azerbaijani National Academy of Sciences (Aşıqlar, 2004). --GGT (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)- Spartaz Humbug! 12:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment: I did check the source you provided, and it does read like yet another advert. Even some of the primary sources in there don't have the content they are cited for. Notability standards on tr.wiki may be different, but this still doesn't make it notable enough for en.wiki (in my opinion). - Kevo327 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- For future closer's consideration, Abrvagl is a new editor, who mostly edits based on their POV and vote keep on every AfD discussion they ever had. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- What makes you think that it is promotional WP:RS. It is published in an academic biographical dictionary (TEİS - Biographical Dictionary of Turkish Literature), a project sponsored by the Turkish Ministry of Culture and the Ahmet Yesevi University, and where all articles are written by subject matter experts and undergo editorial review. The author of this particular article, Mehmet Erol, is a professor of Turkology at Gaziantep University with a track record of articles on Turkic folk literature. He has also authored a number of articles on Azerbaijani biographies for TEİS, meaning that he would have been invited as the subject matter expert on this. As with all Turkish academic literature, the quality is variable, but this is nonetheless a very decent source and it confirms the existence of multiple additional offline sources. --GGT (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)]
- For future closer's consideration. 1. This is completely baseless accusation. Anyone can check my votes and confirm, that they are not "KEEP" on every AfD discussions. 2. Kevo327 is experienced user who primarily AfD and speedy delete Azerbaijan related articles. He always votes "Delete" on every discussions. He also previously was warned looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, and for anti-Azerbaijani bias. Abrvagl (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Greetings, There is no need for these personal accusations. As to whether someone !votes more often/usually/always to Delete, that has little bearing on the substance of every AfD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)]
- What makes you think that it is promotional
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. The article has never been updated with effective secondary secondary sources. The supposed academic source described above, isn't. Its uses as references the guys own site, which are primary. So it is suspect. scope_creepTalk 23:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)]
- @Secondary sources normally synthesise information from primary sources. That doesn't make them suspect, that's literally what makes them secondary sources. There's absolutely nothing suspect about using the guy's website for some info about his early years (which is the only citation to the website), in fact that's probably the most solid place to get that (uncontroversial) information. --GGT (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)]
- @
- Thanks, but I really don't a lesson on what consistutes a secondary source when I've done more than 3000 Afd's, created hundreds of article with more than 100k edits. We can go over the references if you want they want. They are rank, meaning crap in the venacular. Not of them proves he is notable. We will go over them shortly.scope_creepTalk 16:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Examination of the references:
- Ref 1 Azərbaycan Respublikasının mədəniyyət xadimlərinə fəxri adların verilməsi haqqında States he is an "Honoured cultural worker". No other context is visible.
- Ref 2 [1] Dead link. Tried it in three browsers but dead. Non-RS.
- Ref 3 UNESCO Multimedia Video & Sound Collections Seems to be video, but no mention of the subject is publishing details.
- Ref 4 Nemət Qasımovdan, Bakı Azərbaycan Letter from the subject to the president thanking for the award. The reference is primary.
- Ref 5 http://www.visions.az/en/news/23/be582a38/ An interview.
- Ref 6 Is dead link.
- Ref 7 Folklor İnstitutunun fəlsəfə doktorları This is a list of doctorates, but can't him on the list after translating it.
- Ref 8 Is dead link.
- Ref 9 Nemet Qasimli – A Bard in Baku This is a passing mention, but the same ref as ref 5.
- So we have out of 9 reference, 4 are dead links, 2 are primary of which goes into a bit of detail, 1 is a passing mention, 1 is a video which doesn't detail in the publishing history and 1 is a "Honoured cultural worker" which is a name of list with secondary detail. So there is no in-depth, secondary coverage of the subject. Potentially, if there was more information on honoured cutural worker meant, but there is no context. Currently the references don't support a BLP. scope_creepTalk 16:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Look, I have nothing but appreciation for your contributions, but they don’t have any bearing on the validity of your arguments, please don’t make this personal. Your argument is that this source is non-academic and non-secondary because, what, it cites the author’s website? I’ll freely admit that it’s not the greatest work of scholarship but the argument just doesn’t follow. It’s an article by a professor in an academic work, and reliable secondary sources cite primary sources by definition. It also signposts to offline sources about this person. I’m not disputing your analysis of the sources in the article but it’s irrelevant. The argument to keep isn’t based on the sources in the article, nor does it have to be. —GGT (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- That reference is using the mans who personnel website as a reference. Its not a valid source, its not independent. Please throw up three other secondary sources per WP:THREE that proves he is notable. That is the standard process for Afd. There is not one thing here that proves that yet. scope_creepTalk 07:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)]
- It also cites various other publications. Independent sources can cite primary sources, independence has to do with the affiliation/CoI of the author/editor, who in this case is a disinterested scholar. This is my final comment here. I’ve addressed these or closely related points in my comments above. I don’t wish to repeat myself, nor do I wish to bludgeon the discussion. I’ll respectfully agree to disagree. —GGT (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- That reference is using the mans who personnel website as a reference. Its not a valid source, its not independent. Please throw up three other secondary sources per
- Look, I have nothing but appreciation for your contributions, but they don’t have any bearing on the validity of your arguments, please don’t make this personal. Your argument is that this source is non-academic and non-secondary because, what, it cites the author’s website? I’ll freely admit that it’s not the greatest work of scholarship but the argument just doesn’t follow. It’s an article by a professor in an academic work, and reliable secondary sources cite primary sources by definition. It also signposts to offline sources about this person. I’m not disputing your analysis of the sources in the article but it’s irrelevant. The argument to keep isn’t based on the sources in the article, nor does it have to be. —GGT (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.