2008–09 Liverpool F.C. season and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature: Difference between pages

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:02, 13 October 2008

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Literature. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Literature|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Literature.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to poetry.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Literature

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. MBisanz ^talk 17:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Dda Gareth

Fails notability test. Closest that it can come to is use in schools, and no evidence or citation to demonstrate that. billinghurst (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - the article does cite a BBC review of the book so it's not a clearly non-notable. The article hasn't been tagged for references so it would seem to make more sense to give it time for improvement first. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tagged it for references. I also note that the review is in Welsh, so I am not sure that it can demonstrate significant notability for English Wikipedia. The article is less than a stub as the reference is as long as the article, has progressed nowhere and there is no connection to an author page. There has been no response here by the initial contributor. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply - There is no restriction on the language for sources. English is preferred for the English Wikipedia, but that does not preclude the use of non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete - for the reasons mentioned in my nomination. billinghurst (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no need to state delete again. That's a given as you are the nominator and aren't doing this on procedural grounds. -- Whpq (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of notability, the coverage in the BBC review is not enough to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
very weak keep widely used textbooks are notable; but i cannot read the review, so I cannot tell if there is evidence for it. DGG (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Question. Can someone give us a summary of the review in English? The BBC review is in Welsh (me thinks). VG ☎ 12:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
- cy Wikipedia article doesn't have much more than the current en article.
- Amazon UK sells the book, but doesn't have any reviews in English. [1]. VG ☎ 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep The BBC review review really takes it past WP:N; if only by the skin of its teeth. I see no reason to not follow the usual standards in this case. Wily D 12:34, 23 October 2008 (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.

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 speedy delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Incredible Adventures of Captain Taylor

I did a Google search and came up with a big goose egg for both this book series and "Andrew J Cole" (supposedly a science fiction writer) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete I tried the first book title in Google Books and in a variety of English language virtual catalogues: no results. N p holmes (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete for lack of verifiability. Nothing turns up in searches at British Library or at Abebooks in author's name or titles. Eddie.willers (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete, either hoax or a mix of crystalballery and WP:NFT. I did find "the first chapter of my new novella" when searching for the first book's title, though I couldn't decide whether that hit was related. Huon (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete either outright hoax or hopelessly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete A hoax. It appears Captain Taylor isn't all that incredible. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps Captain Taylor is Leutenant Charlie Feng's commanding officer :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Captain Tylor is Irresponsible, not Incredible :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:22, 14 October 2008 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kiss,Commander,Promise

I can't find any reviews for this story. VG ☎ 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No sources for notability. Even the references are dead ends. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:53, 20 October 2008 (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.

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. TravellingCari 21:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Cracker Zoo

Non-notable book per WP:BK Wareh (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete non-notable book by non-notable author. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search returns only search results from websites that are trying to sell the book. Cunard (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete: I couldn't find any reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (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.

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. and not likely to emerge. Merging or not does not require AfD and there's no consensus to delete. TravellingCari 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

James Potter and the Hall of Elders' Crossing

I just closed the AfD for this movie as a WP:SNOW...while I was deleting, I found this page...it's a fan fiction novel... Smashville^talk 03:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge whatever's left after a good cleanup to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series since it does appear to have some RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, seems to have been covered by reliable sources, just the fact that it is fan-fiction is no criterium to delete. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and bury the remains at a crossroads at midnight. Much of the 'notability' for this thing is WP:ONEVENT-type stuff. Possibly, a merge as recommended by Jclemens might work. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per AlexTiefling. NN fanfic. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB. Fanfic is essentially non-notable by definition, and the "sources" primarily discuss this as an actual official sequel, which obviously turned out not to be the case... apparently the writer was trying to build up buzz from naiive young fans thinking this was an actual 8th book to be published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge the third-party-sourced information to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series and redirect. I only considerded a weak merge at first, but since this fanfic has some ONEVENT-ness surrounding its legal dispute but is still not mentioned in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series, notability and undue weight is a concern here. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge the details of any legal dispute from reliable sources to Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series. Details of the content of the book and its writer need deleting with extreme prejudice per WP:ONEVENT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep per my comments during the previous AFD. Unlike the film which was NN, this fanfic has been referenced in major third-party sources and that pushes it past the notability/viability bar. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merge/~~Weak~~ Keep. This seems like a notable enough book, at the very least notable enough for the legal disputes article because JK Rowling has at least mentioned this in public. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep, for all the reasons I said the first time around. The subject of the article is arguably even more notable now than it was when I originally created the article almost a year ago; Lippert has even started writing a sequel. There has even been some speculation about Warner Bros. possibly even considering adapting the story to continue making money off the Harry Potter name brand after the last film version of Deathly Hallows is released—unlikely that that would ever pan out, but still, within the Harry Potter fan community at least, this is a big deal. I don't know what else I can say to convince people here; I'm just glad the article wasn't deleted the first time around. --Antodav2007 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Delete and merge the remnants into "legal disputes", per Jclemens. "A big deal in the online fan community because of a bogus rumor" doesn't constitute notability. Lippert (or some of his fanbase) seems to be good at getting people to buy into nonsense; we shouldn't be enablers. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 14 October 2008 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 00:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chemical Feast

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

This book does not appear to meet any of the 5 criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). I have previously prod'ed it, but the prod was removed with the edit summary "famous author, well known book, look for reviews and other refs" - which is factually incorrect. The famous person, Ralph Nader, wrote the introduction, but the book itself is by the relatively unknown Jim Turner, who does not meet criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books) (The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.) NoCal100 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

that deprod summary was my fault. I read too quickly & was careless enough to think it was Nader. DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep pending further search for reviews. The book , that's the book not the report on which it is based, is in over 1200 US libraries. It was translated into French [2] and into Japanese[3] There is, confusingly, another fairly widely held book with almost the same title but on a slightly different subject of diet in disease, Le Riche, W. H. (1982). A chemical feast. New York, NY: Facts on File. ISBN 9780458954209 DGG (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep. A Google Books search shows that this report is very widely cited by other authors. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:48, 9 October 2008 (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.

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. lifebaka++ 00:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Terminal (Brian Keene novel)

Almost entirely a plot summary: fails WP:PLOT and WP:OR; no references: fails WP:V and WP:RS. No evidence that WP:BK is met. Ros0709 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Captain-tucker (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment Additional content has being added to this article; I believe it is salvagable if the "Plot Summary" is removed leaving just the "Plot Description". Ros0709 (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I can find nothing about this novel in reliable sources - no reviews at all. The entire article is OR. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (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.

WP:PROD Nominations

Template nominations

Template:BibleAsFact (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:BibleAsFact)
Template:in-religion-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:in-religion-universe)
Template:Bible-in-universe (Discussion at Wikipedia:TFD#Template:Bible-in-universe)

Poetry

Fouzia Bhatti

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

I am unable to find sig,/in-depth coverage on the subject in RS. The BLP appears to be PROMO and contains WP:OR. The fact that 85% of the content was added by two SPAs John maxel & Mehermehemehr suggesting a potential COI. Courtesy thanks to @Crosji: for flagging this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Various social media sites are about all that pop up and there seems to be someone in the WHO with a similar name, neither of which helps for notability Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Young, Lady Kennet

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because only insubstantial coverage is indicated in articles that are all topically about her spouse, or published by her own school. She fails WP:GNG today and is unlikely to garner more substantial coverage in the future due to her being so dead. JFHJr (㊟) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, Poetry, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment - I have added in reviews of two of her publications. She wrote under the name Elizabeth Young, which makes searching for discussions of her work a challenge. I suspect there is more coverage of her work, but it requires sifting through articles about similar people. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep - I find reviews for multiple books. I also added back some of the text that had been removed prior to the AFD nomination. While this text needs citations (and is now marked as such), it is useful to know in order to find the sources needed. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yuri Lushchai

AfDs for this article:

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

While it's not a G4, it does not appear that the issues raised that led to the prior version being deleted have been resolved. Lushchai was a wonderful person and active Wikipedian but does not appear notable as an author. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL unfortunately applies. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ukraine. Star Mississippi 02:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, History, Military, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I want just to note that I wasn't the one who moved the article to main space. Though I personally think that he is notable, I would be OK with submitting article later with more sources, which are listed on Russian Wikipedia forum and on Wikinews. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

But there is significant coverage of the person. And lack of English language sources is never an argument for deletion.

I would also like to note thst I am XFD closer on ruwiki, and User:Андрей Романенко who moved the article is long-serving administrator on ruwiki. So we might now something about notability rules, right? BilboBeggins (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Different languages have different rules as far as notability. No one is saying he isn't notable on RU wiki, and non English sources are 100% welcome but may not meet the bar needed for notability as required here. Star Mississippi 13:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

There is his biography in the source listed.

There are also plenty of Russian language sources in his death, but they are not neutral and I would rather not include them in the article. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete: NOTMEMORIAL. Simply being a Wikipedian is rarely notable, the rest are stories of his passing. Nothing for notability. His life before death was very much non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
His notability is also due to him being a poet and scientist. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep. To my mind, the key source for this case is the op-ed at Radio Liberty arguing at some length for the special status of Lushchai as a cultural figure. This was not the reason behind keeping the article about this person in ru.wiki, there the closing admin opted for other criteria. Possibly other available sources don't provide so direct and clear reasoning for Lushchai's notability. However, other memorial articles (like this, for instance) also provide significant coverage of his life and are independent of the aforementioned op-ed. All in all I see this person as notable according to WP:BASIC. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Per Andrei Romanenko above. — Maile (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article has enough prose, there is biography, death and legacy section. It could have been nominated for RD had it been in the same state back then. BilboBeggins (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Miskin Abdal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[4][5][6][7][8] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [9], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.

1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)