Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvin Aghayev


 * 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. After discounting the SPI accounts, there is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Elvin Aghayev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NACADEMICS, WP:GNG &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete fwiw, "World Scientist Index" is equivalent to linkedin. You nominate yourself.  DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Aren't the references provided enough proof about the notability of the subject? Just an innocent question. I've cross checked the links and wiki inter links. Looks valid to me. angamk( talk ) 29 March 2015 — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Oh, can we cross check the edits and page views and thereafter decide? Keeping should be good though as I find the article informative though the reference provided are too few. Maybe we can expand the list and remove the links that are irrelevant. Khangrah talk 11:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The references are mostly published papers, which don't establish notability. The few other references and the only coverage of the subject are tweets that are embedded in a few articles. Are you suggesting some new sources that would meet the requirements of WP:GNG? &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Someone who's either just completed their PhD or is still writing up their dissertation, asserting this meets WP:PROF is fantastically overoptimistic, and presumably is because the author has the usual reason for writing about a nobody. Le petit fromage (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject doesn't appear to be a pursuing PhD. or have completed or whatever. Looks like the Institute doesn't offer that.VKWmi (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC) — VKWmi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment and that establishes their notability...how? &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. And the keep arguments above are extremely weak and not policy-based. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Does not yet pass WP:BIO, etc. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Most of the reference links are third party entities, where does the question of GNG comes in here. Yeah, that's what I see. I am new here and just kinda wondering--Nomad25 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Nomad25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * GNG comes into play because you didn't even look at the sources. Most of the sources are publications of the author, which does not establish notability per WP:NACADEMIC. The only news sources are not coverage of the subject, they merely embed his tweets, which makes the only coverage minor and self-published. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Can we keep this for sometime with a tag less harsh and consider deletion if notability cannot be established within a given time? I think this give room for improvement if there are any. --Taureanbull1985 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC) — Taureanbull1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The subject either meets notability guidelines and deserves to stay, or does not meet notability guidelines and deserves deletion. We are not discussing the quality of the article here, we are discussing the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of which there are none. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the best option if you would like to retain the work done would be to request the material be userfied or moved to the draft namespace where it can be developed before moving back to the article space. Speaking as one of the delete !votes above, I would have no objection to userfication. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 18:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think userfication would be premature until the sockpuppetry issue is resolved. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looking at the user contributions of keepers VKWmi, Nomad25, and Taureanbull1985 (very few, and limited purely to this AfD and topics related to diabetes in dogs of all things) it seems an SPI may be in order. I don't have time right now but if someone else doesn't get to it first I'll try to find some time later today for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there's more going on than that. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC).  I also nominate user:Kuknalim, user:Chonchonr and user:TharmingamK. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, now up to 23 suspected socks. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see evidence that the subject of this article meets minimal requirements for inclusion into Wikipedia. The standards are established, clear, and low, and I see no arguments that this person meets those standards.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2015 (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.