Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulla Xolmuhamedov


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces. With a BLP, there are enough questions about the sourcing quality to keep this from remaining as a standalone. However no clear consensus to delete the content despite the socking and potential UPE. Therefore it remains under the redirect. Star  Mississippi  18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Abdulla Xolmuhamedov

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This biography of a living person is extremely poorly-sourced, and my internet searches didn't unearth any decent sources at all. —S Marshall T/C 16:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 16:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominator: Noting that the article was started by sockpuppet User:AyodeleA2, sock of now-banned sockmaster User:Aa372798.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage.  Frank   Anchor  20:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to redirect and selective merge to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces as an ATD per Hydronium Hydroxide's suggestion below. This is a reasonable WP:ATD  Frank  Anchor  16:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, and the added detail of having been started by a sock. Though subject matter started by a sock could of its own merit be notable of course, this one does not seem to meet GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment I urge all of the community members to not evaluate this subject with western media standards. Imagine Gen. Michael Langley's article under discussion just because someone tried to evaluate him under sources available in Uzbekistan for him. To complete my argument,
 * Delete: That this article was created by a sockpuppet is immaterial. What is important is that there are no sources to establish notability. Searches in Russian and Uzbek (lotin, kiril) turn up nothing more than the presidential order cited on the ruwiki page, which does not make the subject notable. Akakievich (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can't quite believe that anyone would seriously believe that the commander of a large sovereign state's air force wasn't notable. Pure WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. wp:anybio the subject is a recipient of the Shon-Sharaf Order and made recognised contributions as a 4 star general and the commander of the Uzbekistan airforce. Also, I agree with Necrothesp it’s just a sad state of affairs. 223.29.224.203 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He's received these awards and been made 4 star general and commander of the Uzbekistan airforce and so on according to which reliable source? Cite it.—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As per this source 154.81.230.102 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have grave concerns about that source's reliability, as explained below.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * confirming his appointment as a major general and Commander of Air Defence Forces and Air Force (Presidential Order)
 * confirming he's a 4 star Major General (No. 48)

His complete biography is mentioned here. It is The Center for Military-Political Research (CVPR) at Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Including the multiple national award he received (Red star medal, Shon-Sharaf etc.) - 91.193.181.182 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I am usually the first person to object to an article being removed based on lack of available sources in the Anglophone media, but in this case I really have been unable to find independent, substantial sources regarding Abdulla Xolmuhamedov. A Presidential Order of Uzbekistan is not independent, and a list of generals is not substantial. Uzbekistan has plenty of independent and semi-independent media outlets, publishing houses, newspapers, etc, so I find this surprising.
 * Do you know of any sources (in any language) that discuss Xolmuhamedov at any length, and are independent from the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan? If we had even one such source, that would change my view considerably. Akakievich (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting, no matter what part of the planet an article subject is from, there need to be some RS offering SIGCOV to satisfy verifiabiity and notability standards. Do the sources offered in this discussion supply that? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep.. Properly sourced. NYC Guru (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable subject and article is appropriately sourced. Kojavak (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC) — Kojavak (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Which of the horrible sources in this article do you two say is proper and appropriate, and why?—S Marshall</b> T/C 12:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * NB: this editor was since blocked for repeatedly offering outright incorrect advice at the teahouse and flaming other users; this response is likely a troll Akakievich (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per NYCGuru and Necrothesp. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, we have a problem in this AfD, and it's that people are showing up to assert the sources are sufficient, when they self-evidently are not. Let me try to trigger a discussion about these sources that people are saying are okay.  We have:
 * 1) This, a presidential bulletin announcing Mr Xolmuhamedov's promotion to Major General;
 * 2) This, which triggers a virus alert when I click on it;
 * 3) This, an online CV; and
 * 4) This, which is four lines of text in an archive.
 * Now, let's read this in the light of the relevant policy, which is WP:BLP. If we're going to follow the policy, then we're required to, and I quote:.
 * Because this is a contested deletion, AfD is the only venue I can use to be very firm. Please help me follow core policy. The weird pretence that these sources are okay needs to stop, please, because they self-evidently are not.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 09:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for this. "This article should be kept despite the lack of suitable sources to establish notability" is an understandable position, although I doubt it will carry much weight. "This article should be kept because suitable sources exist" is not, because not a single suitable source has actually been presented and this is clear to anyone who has as much as read the guidelines. Akakievich (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an online CV, it is Reliable source as it's managed by Russian Foreign Ministry, It has significant coverage and it is Independent as subject does not belong to Russia. It can be considered a primary sources but it checks all the conditions to be an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.193.181.182 (talk • contribs)
 * But it is a CV. Its format and content are totally CV-like.  You're right to say that its domain name suggests it's hosted by the Russian Foreign Ministry.  We Wikipedians wouldn't normally evaluate the Russian government as a highly reliable source.  I agree that the Russian government is unlikely to be lying, but they have an obvious interest in promoting their allies, and they have a history of telling the truth selectively.  They omit key details.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 16:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not want to be too decisive on behalf of other community members. The source is being discussed here and as of now the result is quite opposite. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Keep. As per WP:ANYBIO, the subject meets clause 1 and 2. This reliable source already discussed above confirms that he has received well-known and significant awards and that he has made recognized contributions in a specific field.

Also, I would want to bring WP:NOTBURO into this discussion as the subject is clearly a positive entry and is improving the encyclopaedia. The policy states:

154.81.230.102 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion is still ongoing even after 2 weeks. Any more consideration of Redirect suggestion? I have no opinion but I don't want it to be buried in the comments here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is relisted again, please consider doing so with a semi-protected AfD.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Standard measure for managing IP addresses pushing or advocating for a non-source-based outcome.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The IPs contributing here have put forward perfectly valid arguments. You just don't agree with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have put forward a perfectly valid argument, which I find fairly convincing – I do think WP could benefit from some idea of which subjects are inherently notable without always descending into arguments about GNG. However, that's not the same argument made by all the IP editors here. Most either refer to the Shon-Sharaf Order (which kicks the can down the road, because then we need to discuss whether that makes a subject notable), or simply insist that the sources present are sufficient. This is plainly not the case! There is absolutely no way we can generate consensus here when a significant number of the participants insist that unsuitable sources are in fact absolutely fine, and then do not expand or reply to any of our questions. This is kind of a problem, because it exploits a fundamental weakness in the AfD system: if you want to stop an article being deleted, you don't actually need to establish consensus that its subject is notable, or even make any credible arguments whatsoever to support that claim – in fact, it's probably easier to make enough unsupported statements that consensus becomes impossible and the nomination is inevitably closed as having no consensus (as I suspect will happen here). Akakievich (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a no consensus close as appropriate, and if this were closed as no consensus at this stage, then I would proceed directly to deletion review. I've cited the relevant policy, and I wish sysops like Necrothesp would uphold it.  It asks for high-quality sources.  Note that last word -- it's plural.  More than one source is required.  So even if we conceded that this is a reliable source for a BLP (and for the avoidance of doubt I most certainly do not concede that), we're still only halfway there.  Without two (2) reliable sources this content can't meet core policy.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 18:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think WP could benefit from some idea of which subjects are inherently notable without always descending into arguments about GNG. We had one of those. It said all general, air and flag officers were inherently notable. But sadly the deletionists got their way and it was swept away. So here we are! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, while maybe notable via WP:ANYBIO, its a BLP without enough reliable sources. Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect/(brief merge): Per this deprecation discussion and WP:NSOLDIER there is not a presumption of notability for senior military personnel, and WP:BIO must be met. There's currently a distinct lack of independent sigcov sufficient to meet WP:BASIC (noting that sources may be in Russian or in Latin or Cyrillic forms of Uzbek, that there's multiple romanisations possible of his name, and that it looks like names can be inflected, which doesn't make searching easier). A reasonable alternative to deletion is redirection to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces and brief -- brief -- capsule coverage. What must not stand, regardless of the outcome of this AFD, however, is this parasitic insertion. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what rule, policy, or *anything* claims a copy of referenced text as I did from one article to another detrimental? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I came across a related discussion at RS and this piqued my interest. A quick search brought up a result in Russian that has not been mentioned here, I believe. This is a reproduction of an article published in the Military-industrial courier (n° 30 (97) of 2005), a Russian weekly specialising in military affairs which appears to have gone under (at least in its online version - had it been up it would probably be better to just go with the original). It's not extensive coverage by any means, but he's mentioned as Uzbekistan's head of the Air Force with the rank of colonel, and at the same time acting as deputy minister of defence. The context is a general discussion of the capabilities and responsibilities of members of the joint CIS air defense programme (there was a time when this was a thing!). The same site also has a CV of the individual in question here. As for the site itself, since for the CV they would be the source, this is how they describe their project. The site certainly has a very "vintage" feel to it, the description is generic and the names are unknown to me, but I also think we could be doing a lot worse. Ostalgia (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This source doesn't _say_ anything about Xolmuhamedov though, other than that he existed and was deputy defense minister and commander of the air force. He gets one line at the very end of the article. Not significant coverage. If that's the bar we're working with, we might as well include this article from Новый Калининград, which does at least come from an independent source (although possibly not reliable and certainly not sigcov, so it doesn't count towards GNG). So far, by my count, we still don't have a single piece of material which counts towards GNG. Akakievich (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I was quite explicit in stating that this did not constitute significant coverage? Ostalgia (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * my apologies, i missed the 'not' in your message and interpreted it as saying the exact opposite. yep, we agree. Akakievich (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sorry I missed this. I agree that it's not significant coverage, but it gets us over the WP:V bar, at least.  What do we think about its reliability?—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 20:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I spent five minutes on this website and I have to say I've never raised my eyebrows quite so far in my life.
 * hmm. well, I kind of have a history with Russian-produced sources covering Central Asia, but I'm going to evaluate this neutrally. no cherry-picking. let's take the most recent (at time of writing) news story linked on the front page.
 * hmm, this seems kind of like the debunked pro-Russian talking point according to which NATO countries are using Ukraine as an instrument with which to attack Russia. what's this doing on a website about Central Asia, anyway?!
 * wh-what? surely the most concerning thing about this entire story is the comparison of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Mujahideen? what's this doing on a website about Central Asia, anyway?!
 * This contortion of history is somehow beyond offensive, I don't think I could come up with this stuff even if I tried. In case I really need to explain: the execution of 30 Russophiles in Galicia (for aiding an invading army) is in no way comparable to the damn holocaust!!!
 * The rest of the article is a rambling account of western "interference" in Ukraine, including some corkers such as "America has been pumping Ukraine full of arms and russophobia since the first Euromaidan in 2004" (there was no "Euromaidan" in 2004). I won't discuss this any further, it's not even relevant to Central Asia and I have absolutely no idea why it's here.
 * ok, let's move on, this is already FAR too long. Let's try and assess the reliability another way. I'm going to click the first link I find on the homepage that clearly has something to do with Central Asia and does not relate to current affairs.
 * This is a book advertised for sale. At first, I thought it might have something to do with Asharshylyk, or Qazaq Famine. But a brief look online as well as at the contents page reveals that it's actually promoting the idea that Russians have been subject to genocide in Qazaqstan, a conspiracy theory so absurd that I can't even find any overviews to link to on the English-speaking internet. (for reference: this is invoked by raving nationalists and extremist politicians whenever the Qazaq government tries to increase the prominence of the Qazaq language at the expense of Russian. controversial? maybe. genocide? hell no.) All I can find are Russian-language blog posts and speeches by Dmitry Medvedev, which as a fact probably speaks for itself. At this point I'm going to stop because I've been asked in the past not to use profanity on Wikipedia talk pages.
 * I'm sorry to post something so long on an already-bloated AfD discussion, but I hope this short excursion gives you some kind of insight into the profound derangement embodied by this website. I do not think this is a reliable source. Akakievich (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO, WP: NOTBURO, and WP:5P5 is totally being neglected here in this discussion. The subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Source [3] is reliable and part of MGIMO. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt it’s reliability. The same website is used on multiple articles as a source on the English Wikipedia. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * This is a book advertised for sale. At first, I thought it might have something to do with Asharshylyk, or Qazaq Famine. But a brief look online as well as at the contents page reveals that it's actually promoting the idea that Russians have been subject to genocide in Qazaqstan, a conspiracy theory so absurd that I can't even find any overviews to link to on the English-speaking internet. (for reference: this is invoked by raving nationalists and extremist politicians whenever the Qazaq government tries to increase the prominence of the Qazaq language at the expense of Russian. controversial? maybe. genocide? hell no.) All I can find are Russian-language blog posts and speeches by Dmitry Medvedev, which as a fact probably speaks for itself. At this point I'm going to stop because I've been asked in the past not to use profanity on Wikipedia talk pages.
 * I'm sorry to post something so long on an already-bloated AfD discussion, but I hope this short excursion gives you some kind of insight into the profound derangement embodied by this website. I do not think this is a reliable source. Akakievich (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO, WP: NOTBURO, and WP:5P5 is totally being neglected here in this discussion. The subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Source [3] is reliable and part of MGIMO. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt it’s reliability. The same website is used on multiple articles as a source on the English Wikipedia. 91.193.181.182 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm sorry to say yet another thing in this AfD, but as Hydronium Hydroxide rightly says, Buckshot06 just merged this article to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces. Therefore deleting Abdulla Xolmuhamedov would create a WP:PATT problem.  If the consensus is to delete Abdulla Xolmuhamedov and the closer doesn't have time to perform a complex page history merge, the closer's welcome to ping me so I can resolve the attribution problem using a terms of use compliant attribution page (as I did at, for example, Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain/Attribution).  If the consensus is to redirect to Uzbekistan Air and Air Defence Forces and the merge stays, then the redirect page needs to be tagged with R from merge to preserve attribution.  Personally I'm with Hydronium Hydroxide that the merge should be reverted, which is a much simpler way to solve all the attribution problems.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Just like Saydulla Madaminov article I have serious concerns that the article can be a paid for affair. Also I have sifted throught the sources, and only one talks at some length about the person. All of the rest are just his name on lists of people, intended to confirm him having an award or having graduated an academy. Unless any of you can added more RS, i would say it both failed to show notability and is not reliably sourced. F.Alexsandr (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with S Marshall et al throughout this debate that the sourcing provided is not reliable and independent, and therefore GNG is not met. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Source is not only reliable but also affiliated with MGIMO. There is no apparent reason to question its reliability, especially considering its frequent usage across multiple articles. Furthermore, a discussion regarding its reliability was also initiated here.2407:D000:D:38DC:C99C:1164:5E51:A2C8 (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.