Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akrom Yo‘ldoshev

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 keep. Big Dom 14:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akrom Yo‘ldoshev

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to the ~~one~~ source provided, this individual wrote a political/religious pamphlet, and was later jailed for alleged involvement in some terrorist attacks. This is very dubious as far as notability is concerned. A person identifying themself as the son of the subject of the article has posted at WP:BLPN stating that the article lacks sufficient detail to give a reasonable account of this living person's life and actions. ~~In addition, the article has remained in this stub state for several years now, without significant improvement.~~ --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I was just going to boldly redirect it the group associated to him Akromiya and close this but then I read that his wife denies he has anything to do with this group but he is cited as founder in another cite he is cited as leader, what about speedily redirecting it? Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. A brief search with Google and Google Books shows multiple reliable sources that name Yo‘ldoshev as the creator of Akromiya, including scholarly research published in an established journal. Being the eponymous founder of a notable religious organization would seem to me to meet the criterion of "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". The article doesn't make any contentious statements that aren't attributed, and appears to be NPOV. (However, the paragraph referring to his wife should probably be removed.) Per WP:BLPDEL, "Page deletion is normally a last resort" and it's not called for in this case. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most English-language sources seem to refer to the subject by the transliteration of the Russian form of his name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any degree on independent note worthy of a BLP, can some of these reliable citations be presented here? or even better added to the article? I also don't see that wp:anybio applies either, and comments such as there are millions of google reports are valueless without article improvement or actual presentation in the AFD of some of them that meet our WP:RS and specifically address and discuss the subject in detail. He appears a very minor figure it the truth of things, even the group appears of little true independent notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are The Washington Post, The New York Times and the New Statesman (all in the first ten news results that I linked) not independent and reliable? Or books published by M. E. Sharpe, Taylor & Francis and Columbia University Press (also in the top ten results)? Why should I have to list here what you can easily see for yourself by simply clicking on the Google News, Books and Scholar links that I have provided? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Phil, your post wasn't there when I began posting so I missed that, my reply was actually in response to Macwhiz's comment. I will have a little look at that, I appreciate you linking internally to our articles but that is valueless in assessing this issue, we have lots of articles but this is a deletion discussion about this article. If you assert you have found something WP:RS would you either add it to the BLP or actually present the actual source here for evaluation and consideration. Do you intend to add any citation or content to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to be getting the point. My first post links to several searches. The ones that you can get to by clicking on the words "news, "books" and "scholar" find many reliable sources in the first few entries found. You can read those sources just as easily by following the links that I have already provided as you could if I copied them here, but as you seem unwilling to spend the extra second or two to do that then these are the specific sources that I referred to [1][2][3][4][5][6]. They are only a small selection of the reliable sources that you can see by looking further down those search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here to search your point Phil, add it to the article, that will impress me. I am not easily impressed by such things as google search results, show me a WP:RS that focuses on discussing the life story of this living person or two or three of them, even better add them to the article Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you six sources, and linked to searches that find many more. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:BLPDEL, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." Since it is clearly possible to improve this article, there is no BLP justification for deleting the article. There's a BLP report purportedly from a relative of the subject, but not from the subject themselves, essentially claiming that the sources Phil linked to above have all incorrectly linked the subject with the group named after him because he founded it and then published a book describing the group's manifesto. That's not exactly persuasive grounds for a BLP deletion. The article is otherwise neutral and factual, if in need of some rescue. Deleting it would serve no purpose; improving it is the way to go here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - here is a link to the BLPN report, I also note that from what I read, the subject of the article is apparently currently imprisoned and attempting to get himself released and denying all involvement with founding this group. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - to the group he founded. Off2riorob (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Phil Bridger mentioned, plus a search under the common transliteration of his name to English, "Akram Yuldashev", which shows widespread coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any intention of improving the article? It currently has a single citation.Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:BEFORE is an obligation on the nominator, Off2riorob, not those who recommend keeping an article. I expand many articles I discover at AfD, but am not obligated to do so. Take a look at this book, Islam after communism:religion and politics in Central Asia which discusses this person in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think anyone supporting to keep an article also has a duty of care to bring that article up to scratch, I have seen articles kept and citations posted on the talkpage by someone and others support and yet the article remains the same, personally I would never vote keep to a sub standard article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I disagree with you, Off2riorob, about that "duty" which appears nowhere in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, I have expanded the article, and added three sources. I selected the material and references to try to begin to present both sides of the story. I am sure that other editors can improve on my preliminary efforts here. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also added an external link to a website with lots of objective information about this person. THe comment on the BLP noticeboard said, "I am the son of the person who is being regarded in this article. I found the article too brief to give the right idea about my dad. Because it lacks in details the article falsely accuses my dad in a crimes that he has never done. I want you to take this article off of the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.87.216 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)" I believe that the article now addresses those concerns and also shows his notability.Cullen328 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator (slightly contradictory I know). Cullen328's edits address the reasons for my nomination adequately. The son of the individual (or anyone else) may still wish to raise BLP concerns with the article in its revised condition, but that can be resolved through ordinary editing. It's also difficult to question the subject's notability in the light of the links provided above. In the absence of any Delete !votes, and with my nomination withdrawn, this might as well be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.