- Elshad Mamedov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The person is a National Hero of the Republic of Azerbaijan, ([1],[2]) which make him "worthy of notice”. The topic fairly pass GNG having "significant coverage". The absence of existing sources during discussion does not mean the topic is not notable. There are several secondary sources covering the topic directly and in detail, for example: [3], [4] , and also, Vugar Asgarov “Azərbaycanın Milli Qəhrəmanları” [National Heroes of Azerbaijan], II , 2010, p. 194.
The person is National Hero (there are evidences for this claim) and there are enough reliable sources available to make original research unnecessary to extract the content, so the topic fairly warrant its own article. I believe that sources were not identified during the discussion. --Surə 🗯 14:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have discussed this with Liz as closing administrator. Can you advise on why? Star Mississippi 14:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I missed it. Thanks @Cryptic for the notification. Star Mississippi 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Five Delete views anchored in policy, and one Keep view based on "He's a national hero". I'd say consensus was pretty clear. Of the four sources provided here by the appellant, two are merely an entry in a list, one is a brief interview with his family, and one is a 150 word official announcement about posthumously awarding him the title of National Hero of Azerbaijan. Nothing in the way of SIGCOV to justify draftifying for further work. Owen× ☎ 18:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The consensus was clear enough in the discussion, so I'm not going to even second guess a good close. Since this was a failure to consider GNG argument, I did a BEFORE search using his name in Azerbaijani sources and could not find anything clearly - I am not convinced this was an incorrect result. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify User:Sura_Shukurlu makes some impressive claims. Draftify the deleted page if it will help him to substantiate these claims. Follow the advice at WP:THREE. When done, either wait six months, or submit through AfC. In the meantime, endorse and respect the AfD as properly run. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject to copyright concerns of course. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and allow recreation as draft from scratch. There was overwhelming consensus to delete and the four sources brought up above do little to change that. The one describing Mamedov receiving an award is probably the closest to GNG-passing but that alone is not enough to warrant an article.
Moving to recreating on draft space will allow any user time to find more sources if available and develop the article to move back to mainspace, either by AFC or by just moving it, subject to another AFD. Frank Anchor 16:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Modified to reflect copyvio concerns brought up by Cryptic. Copyright infringement can not be restored, however I have no objection having a non-copyvio draft. Frank Anchor 18:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted version appears to me to be copyright infringement via translation of its first cited source, [5]. At the very least, it's quite close paraphrasing. Do not restore. —Cryptic 17:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as a good call by Liz on both policy and consensus, do not restore to draft or elsewhere per the copyright issues raised by others, allow recreation from scratch, with the feedback noted here. Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Without using the term, this article seems to have been TNTd or something close to it due to serious reservations participants in the AfD had around copyright, writeup, notability, and sourcing. The closer made a good call that reflected the debate. No objection to recreation via appropriate methods if indeed better sources were found. gidonb (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
