Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tofig Abbasguliyev

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. ✗plicit 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tofig Abbasguliyev

Tofig Abbasguliyev (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)

Originally PRODDED by Kevo327 with the rationale: Fails GNG, the only sources are one primary source (CV at the university which he worked at, said university probably did a paided editing campaign and has a lot of unnotable articles) and self published unreachable source. unnotable university professor who fail relevant notability criteria.

I then moved it here, not because I disagreed with Kevo327s PROD, but since it is quite easy to get a prodded article back, and that isn't going to need to happen, since he will almost certainly never become any more notable. He fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unless some sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - I could not find any reliable sources and they do not appear to be notable.
  talk) 02:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I agree that the person fails
  WP:REFUND unless there is a concern that would occur. I understand that might be borne out of the paid editing, bt it seems like that actively has largely ceased. TartarTorte 03:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks for the input on that. Whilst it has largely ceased, there is still some activity, though relatively minor maintenance stuff. I was concerned that they might suddenly notice that all their promo was going down the gurgler, and jump into action. However they probably aren't getting paid enough at the moment or something, because I am yet to see any action whatsoever. Mako001 (C)  (T)  12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous prod and nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Without any solid reference. fails all notability guidelines. ZanciD (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails all notability guidelines Davidoooo123 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (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.