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. ✗plicit 23:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Malikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Was a soft delete through AfD last year, recently challenged. The original nom, Thenightaway's rationale was, "There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites." The resurrected article has zero in-depth sourcing, and I cannot see any indication they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – After reviewing the article and its sources, I do not believe this biography meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. While Aladdin Malikov may have academic credentials and publications, the article does not cite any significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources that provide in-depth analysis or commentary on his work or impact. Most of the references appear to be primary sources, such as listings of academic roles or publication records, and some are user-generated or non-independent. There’s a noticeable absence of third-party profiles, interviews, or critical reception— which are essential to establish notability under both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The article also lacks encyclopedic depth. It reads more like a résumé or institutional bio, focusing on positions held and publications, rather than providing sourced, contextual information about influence, recognition, or broader relevance. Unless stronger sources can be provided, I believe deletion is the appropriate outcome.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is this but not much else I could find - fails GNG and NPROF. Shapeyness (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2025 (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.