Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman Gadzhi (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The reasons given for keeping are "Subject is notable", "The subject of the article is obviously notable"; both without any indication why; "A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast, Patrick Bet-David, Dan Bilzerian, Dixie D'Amelio, Paul Logan, etc", but notability is not inherited from other notable people merely because one is mentioned together with them (I am sure I have sometimes been mentioned in the same sentence as notable people, but I am not notable); "Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category"; "The subject seems notable enough", again without any indication why; "His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page"; I am not personally the greatest fan of the current notability guidelines, and I think there is a case for including "online presence" in the guidelines, but at present that is not so; "His notability is uncontestable", well, several people have contested it; "Coupled with the businesses he founded", which I can only assume means that we should regard notability as inherited from a business ot its founder, but we don't; "Page should stay", again without any indication why. Not a single one of those addresses Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so we have no policy compliant reasons for "keep" at all. JBW (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Iman Gadzhi
AfDs for this article:


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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NCREATIVE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the sources are all these three things at the same time: (1) independent of the subject, (2) reliable, (3) in-depth in terms of coverage. The person may have had some unspecified roles in some productions (World's Greatest Social Stars, Top 25!, etc.) but there is no evidence that these are significant productions and there is no evidence that these were significant roles. There is some coverage of a thing associated with the subject called "monk mode". Coverage of that is not meaningful in terms of sources useful for establishing notability either. The person has not made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" and is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". His YouTube channel, TikTok and other online presences are not encyclopedically relevant at all. —Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, Russia,  and United Kingdom. —Alalch E. 12:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: Sure, I have seen the Gadzhi's social media content, and they are undeniably very well known. In spite, it does not really meet WP:N due to the reliable sources. Maybe draftify is the best option here. Seems like a fan made page, but I respect it!
 * Infomemoh (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article can be improved upon. Subject is notable. Wallclockticking (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the paid editor who created the article. —Alalch E. 22:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Paid editor? Let us use such labels lightly please. I don't even know the subject of the article and I won't take such disrespect from you. Be guided. Wallclockticking (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * yes you are a paid editor, and a terrible one! Iman can not and will not just buy his way into getting a Wikipedia page. Sorry 2601:589:4E00:BE40:B530:8AFE:23E7:A3B5 (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This post is in violation of No personal attacks which clealy states "No accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". Wallclockticking (talk) 07:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You are the paid editor who created the article LMAOOOOOOOO 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I nominated this last go round... Same reasons apply. I'll also mention that source 10 is patently false, the person's name doesn't appear at all in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the author meant to link to this article, which is a first person retelling of the interview, so not really helping sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sources 20 and 21 are tours of his house, but mostly photo captions to social media reposts. Not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and comments. I will do my best to implement any advice I get from here. I really dont want the article deleted, it will hurt me so much. Wallclockticking (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not personal, it's wiki-business, to coin a phrase. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: The subject of the article is obviously notable. The only issue I found out when going through the page is that the editor is still new and isn’t very conversant with Wikipedia guidelines yet. Amaekuma (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject could be notable, yes, but there are no sources that discuss him at length, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As your bio points out "This user recognizes the importance of citing sources." Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen you try to throw around your weight around because I am a new editor. You are trying to intimidate me. You will fail. Wallclockticking (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: A notable social media personality who is mentioned in the same breathe as MrBeast, Patrick Bet-David, Dan Bilzerian, Dixie D'Amelio, Paul Logan, etc. Notable as an online personality and influencer and falls into that category. I think some people have a perchant for avoiding the media and keep a lowkey lifestyle. But that doesn't mean they are less notable. Laurengoldstreet (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide extensive sourcing for the individual. Mentioned with others doesn't confer notability on this person. He can be as lowkey as he wants, with proper sourcing, anything can have an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Same as first deletion, not enough has been done to demonstrate notability Nswix (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject seems notable enough. I rather say every other person can help improve this article to put it in its best state possible. Onosco23 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yet another WP:ITSNOTABLE comment. This commenter with 61 edits participated in this obscure AfD that resulted in a crypto spam page being deleted. He recommended keeping saying it can be worked upon in order to improve its quality. —Alalch E. 08:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It most certainly could, but the commenter should provide sourcing examples to help the discussion here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Reason: His online presence alone is good enough for a Wikipedia page. His notability is uncontestable. Coupled with the businesses he founded. Page should stay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh right, his notability is uncontestable, how did I fail to notice this... sheesh, I really need to remember to refer to the list of uncontestably notable influencers every time I start an AfD. —Alalch E. 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Wallclockticking (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, we are contesting the notability, I'd ask Abdhoul above to provide better sources than what we currently have, which are not very helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Wallclockticking (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Review of the sources shows virtually nothing reliable, or in-depth. Note: source 11 is an WP:RS, but makes no mention of the subject. I see nothing encyclopaedic here; potentially a candidate for salt.  ResonantDistortion 23:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Reason: Most likely done by a paid editor who created this article which it seems like, lack of real notability on this individual looks like paid for press links to write about himself which is completely against Wikipedia's terms. You can't buy your way into a page it's just piteous and diverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4E00:BE40:B530:8AFE:23E7:A3B5 (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This post is in violation of No personal attacks, which states that "No accusations about an editor without evidence".
 * This post is in violation of Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people.
 * Wallclockticking (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Source analysis table:


 * —Alalch E. 16:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone created a table and indicated whatever he could conjour up in his biased mind and called it assessment. Trying to intimidate amd sway votes because you have spent more time on Wikipedia is a Putin and Mugabe like behavior. Wallclockticking (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Please understand and respect that it is detrimental to Wikipedia's goals of being a free online encyclopedia that acts a source of knowledge, and therefore needs to remain credible, to allow pages like the one you've created here to be allowed to remain a part of the encyclopedia. —Alalch E. 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Respect Wikipedia's goals acting as a source of free knowledge, and stop complaining that you aren't most gonna get paid for getting your devious under the table job done to attempt to create a Wikipedia page for undisclosed payments. :))) @Wallclockticking 2601:589:4E00:BE40:9123:9291:D92A:76E6 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * 'Delete' - I smell socks and meat and recommend salting if page is deleted as this is just a sign that someone will attempt to recreate it despite any consensus here. That aside, nom is correct about notability. The references are not in-depth about the subject or otherwise unreliable.


 * 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.