Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parviz Iskenderov (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. Star  Mississippi  03:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Parviz Iskenderov
AfDs for this article:


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

Although the facts are laid out and easily verifiable, the article appears to lack a significant, independent coverage in the secondary sources, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. Zafir94 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC) As a fact there have been only a few journalists specializing in covering kickboxing, meaning all those "many articles" on Wikipedia wouldn't really exist (wouldn't have multiple sources) if it wasn't for those (only a handful of) journalists covering this sport, as a result helping with the notability of its participants. In other words, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia, if there was no articles to cite. And there wouldn't be those cited articles if there was no authors/journalists that write them. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Belarus,  and Australia. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of independent sources and I found nothing to show he's a notable kickboxer. No indication he's won any notable titles. Does not pass WP:KICK and WP:GNG Lethweimaster (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Dozens of articles authored by the subject are cited throughout Wikipedia in order to meet GNG of other organizations/people in combat sports (including those tried to improve). Zafir94 (talk) - Being the author of articles used on wikipedia doesn't make him pass WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, as a journalist, according to what you are saying, he is "not notable", but what he does/writes is used to establish the notability of others. Also Notability_(journalists) would be helpful. Zafir94 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are many articles from journalist that are used all across Wikipedia, adding coverage and strengthening notability of these subjects, however this does not in any way make these journalists notable. Lethweimaster (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, it seems obvious that the subject would be widely known in the field of combat sports, since the authors on Wikipedia use his work to establish notability of other subjects they write about, including some of the most prominent athletes and kickboxing organizations.
 * I am not entirely sure that just because Wikipedia cites this person's work, he's automatically eligible for an article. Has there been any coverage on Iskenderov himself? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You should probably once again review this section on your talk page previously left for you by experienced editors, admins. Zafir94 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "using his work" on wikipedia with being notable himself. As cited in the failed proposal Notability_(journalists): This would include far too many journalists. For example, Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei, the founder and editor in chief is a Burmese named Aung Mint Sein. His articles are used as coverage in many articles on wikipedia to establish WP:GNG, but it does not make him notable and does not make him pass WP:GNG himself. One day Lethwei World might have a wiki, similar to Fightmag (where Parviz works), but it doesn't justify a stand alone page for Mr. Aung Mint Sein nor for Parviz Iskenderov. helping with the notability of its participants does not make them notable. By the way, the fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect proves also that there is no claim to notability for his career as a fighter. He doesn't pass WP:NKICK. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have read that section on my talk page, and I follow its advice. That remark you made has absolutely no relevance in this discussion.
 * Also, I 100 percent agree with the editor above me. Please take a look at BLUDGEON Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing really to reply to a "participant" whose "participation" appears to be only tagging/agreeing with everything to be deleted. Zafir94 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Your claim "Lethwei World is the most respected website and the authority for Lethwei" is just your opinion, which basically shows bias. Neither this website really appears as an independent reliable source or a notable publication.
 * 2. Nobody said that if someone's articles are cited on Wikipedia makes them notable. Unfortunately, you seem to be missing the point established above.
 * 3. "The fact that we spent time on his Journalist aspect" proves that the person is versatile, and this aspect is in fact proves that it is an important part of bio of a living person.
 * 4. Further, in my opinion, it would be fair to say that WP:NKICK needs a thorough review - based on its current (as of writing) criteria practically every articles on Wikipedia fails.
 * 5. It was me, who nominated this page for deletion, in order to have a proper discussion, so the administrators can make a final decision.
 * 6. Would be good if other members reviewed the article and the above, and also participated in this discussion. Zafir94 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete He's not notable as a martial artist and I don't believe he meets WP:GNG. I see articles written by him, but to be WP notable he needs to have articles written about him. Papaursa (talk) 16:37, 5 September 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.