Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies"


 * 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 no consensus. The discussion cannot in any way be read as a consensus to delete the article. The reasoning is not necessarily the best – that is why I have gone to no consensus despite that a bare headcount would yield a keep – but the views are clear. AFD is not, however, the place to propose or create SNGs; that would be a matter for an appropriate part of WP:VP.

I do not express a view on renaming; that can be discussed on the article talk page.

As with all my deletion decisions, I consider them carefully before implementing them and do not change my decisions based on talk page requests. If you feel that the decision does not follow deletion policy, please proceed directly to Deletion review; I waive all requirements to consult with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies"

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  12:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Article does not meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE did not reveal WP:RS independent of the subject that addressed the topic directly and in detail beyond WP:ROUTINE mentions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Another option would be to create an article Military Awards of the Republic of Azerbaijan and merge all of the Azerbaijani award aritlces which do not meet criteria for their own individual article, into one article that could (probably) meet WP:GNG. // Timothy ::  talk  03:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: state award of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Established by law dated November 16, 2012. The medal is awarded to employees with a special rank of service in migration bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic who have completed 10, 15 and 20 calendar years, state awards like this are clearly notable. Sources clearly prove its existence!--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 04:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with a more notable article  --Devokewater  @  09:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per what?BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: The keep !votes are entirely based on feeling and opinion and have failed to support the keep !votes with any policies or guidelines. Subjects are notable because they have significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources that addresses the topic directly and in detail WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided are not secondary sources independent of the subject. None of the keep votes has provided (or even attempted to provide) sources that meet WP:RS criteria. Its existence is not enough to prove WP:N, and it is not enough to merit inclusion. "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful" WP:WWIN.  // Timothy ::  talk  10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we're basing it on precedent. See Articles for deletion/Medal of Merit for Blood Donation, for instance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: 1) Do you have a guideline that says "precedent" is a reason to keep a non-notable article? 2) If this is "clearly notable" why have you not added any independent secondary sources that would support this?
 * The article you mentioned was improperly closed. It only had two votes that only stated opinions not sources and guidelines and it should have been relisted. You still have not cite any policys or guidelines for your !votes and has mentioned, you have not provided any independent secondary sources. The closer will disregard opinions and base the decision on sources and notability guidelines.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the closer will do what they choose without any helpful instruction from you! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted after a WP:BADNAC per Deletion review/Log/2020 August 13.
 * Delete per nom. I do not see nearly enough RS to justify that such award is anything notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - State award. Sources proves it. Believe this to be within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep So let’s notes here is no known good reason for deletion other than a flawed subjective view of the article. As per  and  Cheers -- Mekhdi Fayyazli   (Talk)  13:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As per and  Cheers. --Araz Yaquboglu (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Based on the above overturn of the close, I strongly urge everyone to support their comments with policies, guidelines and sources, not invalid personal opinions and feelings. Since this close has been overturned and relisted, the eventual close will without doubt be evaluated based on !votes which are supported by policies and guidelines per WP:CLOSEAFD ("Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."), not WP:ILIKEIT opinion votes without support from policies and guidelines.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added new sources to the article.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. I can't and any previous discussion on this, or any relevant guideline, but it seems to have been longstanding practice. I think this is a case where an argumetn based on WP:OSE is in fact valid, as a matter of precedent. I set before you Category:Military awards and decorations by country and its many sub cats such as Category:Military decorations and medals of South Africa. A few examples, taken from that cat, are Ad Astra Decoration, Closure Commemoration Medal, Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration, Distinguished Conduct Medal (Natal), Efficiency Decoration (South Africa), Good Service Medal, Bronze  iPhrothiya yeBhronzi and from other national categopries Cross of Honour and Military Merit, Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Order of Danylo Halytsky, Order For Courage, and Turkish Armed Forces Medal of Distinguished Service. These are all supported largely or solely through official sources. Ther should probably be an SNG on this topic, but I think this is as good a place as any to start one, as SNGs ususlly start with practice. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I completely support the idea of a proposed SNG to clarify this. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, we should treat officially established awards and medals given out by a nation as being notable if reliable sources, including official sources, prove that they exist and are indeed official national awards. As per Cheers.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note for closer: Since there has been some discussion from both sides of this debate (from this and other recent AfDs) about needing an SNG guideline specifically for Awards, I believe both sides would be very interested in how you evaluated the arguments and made the close decision, so it can help shape and inform any new SNG proposal. Thanks for your help. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply State awards like this are clearly notable and have been held to be notable at AfD in the past. Sources clearly prove its existence. which they all agreed. Article on state awards with official sourcing, it's past time for an RFC on the topic.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep state awards are notable based on past consensus. The article could use some reference format but it is a notable award. Wm335td (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If discussion is closed as keep, a rename is definitely in order. --<u style="color:#0000ff"> Puzzledvegetable <sup style="font-family:Century Gothic">Is it teatime already?  01:53, 27 August 2020 (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.