Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Dialogue for Environmental Action (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.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

International Dialogue for Environmental Action
AfDs for this article:


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

This was soft deleted a couple of months ago, but was recently accepted as an article again. The article creation was a mistake. The article is purely promotional for the subject of the article (WP:G11), who is the daughter of Azerbaijan's authoritarian leader. There is no independent reliable sourcing about this organization. There is nothing to indicate that it is notable. The administrator who accepted the article creation says the article is notable because the regime in Azerbaijan created a stamp about the organization – I would strongly dispute that a father making a stamp for his daughter's organization is an indicator of notability. Per WP's notability guidelines, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – this article fails that basic requirement. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Thenightaway (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This article was soft deleted a couple of months ago, was re-written by me, and published by Graeme Bartlett. The article was reviewed and then re-published as “reliable sources that are independent of the subject”, as instructed in Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG), were the only sources used. So, it is “presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list” (WP:GNG).
 * All information from the previous version of the article was deleted and re-written from blank, so it would portray the subject of an existing organization by using only reliable third-party sources, such as the official websites of the UIA and the UNEP, both organizations that work under the UN.
 * Most importantly, the reconstruction of the page was made specifically to represent the subject so it will follow Wikipedia’s core policy, NPOV:
 * - No opinions were presented by fact or vice versa (WP:YESPOV)
 * - No assertions were presented as facts (WP:YESPOV)
 * - A nonjudgmental language was used (WP:YESPOV)
 * The only violation of NVOP was made by Thenightaway in his explanation for why to delete the article. “I would strongly dispute that a father making a stamp for his daughter's organization is an indicator of notability” clearly represents their personal views of an existing regime and does not follow NPOV policy. Mriogrech (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * First, this editor has made very few edits and a lot of them revolve around adding puffery to pages related to Leyla Aliyeva. I strongly suspect undisclosed WP:COI. Second, the sources in question (that the editor claims are indicative of notability) are just lists or listings published by international organizations. This particular organization is one of countless organizations that are mentioned on those lists – those listings are not in any way indicative of notability. How could this kind of sourcing be indicative of notability:. It's akin to saying that any company that exists in publicly available records maintained by the US government deserves its own Wikipedia page. Thenightaway (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Having an interest in a specific subject does not mean you have a conflict of interests, as it is shown that the re-written article follows all NPOV rules (WP:YESPOV).
 * After rewriting it, it now follows Wikipedia rules (which it hadn’t before), both NPOV and the use of reliable sources (WP:GNG).
 * I firmly believe this page should be portrayed as it contains valid information about an existing organization, and qualifies to be a stand-alone article (WP:GNG). Mriogrech (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Keep". Given the politics of Azerbaijan it seems clear that an organisation supported by the president is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem clear to me at all. What notability guideline does that logic correspond to? Should we also create a Wikipedia page for his favorite restaurant? Thenightaway (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Context is everything. Rathfelder (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: not notable, the references are mostly passing mention in lists, "supported by the president" is a WP:Routine in Azerbaijan, as he does "support" and "sign" every insignificant thing (e.g. renovating the fence of a park). - Kevo3 2 7 (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As stated above, this is not notable at all, just a dictator's daughter blowing the people's hard earned money for expensive clothes, boyfriends, stupid financial decisions, internet clout "activism". I have a strong feeling that some editors here might have an undisclosed COI... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ι realise that what i wrote above might be a little bit offensive, however, i still stand by my vote. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Possible promotion. Even if it's not, lacks evidence of notability. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:33, 18 August 2022 (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.