Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akilbek Allan

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akilbek Allan

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnotable subject, mostly primary sources and original research. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of notability, unfortunately. Almeida Fernando (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - The source exists, for a long time existed was a draft, nor violates the rules of WP:, I think should stay, because it is not spam or advertising, the article is about a living person. You can even further refine it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QRNKS (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the "keep" argument is particularly weak here, the presence of it means we need more input to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think we should keep it. As I said before about leaving it unconditionally. QRNKS (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Keep and Comment: I agree the comment is necessary to leave the project of a living person is interesting, you need to remove not a reference, but my answer would be to leave, but need to rewrite again to correct the biographical department. KzWikimen (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I propose to leave, by the requirement of wikipedia does not violate the rules, although there is little coverage, there is an argument to further refine the article. According to the opinion still need to correct the department, of course not which post to rewrite. Keep QRNKS (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you need to leave the article, you need to correct some errors, and remove unnecessary links and correct sections, leave and correct. DarmB13 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per the sources in the article PeterHaris (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Little coverage of the English language, today prolonged not a lot of time searching for sources, on the remark, dalneesh should finalize this article. Preferably mine will be so although I am a newbie, admin leave this article. PeterHaris (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looked need to make adjustments not which revenge, immediately save and leave, no comment BeenDominic (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sock strike. Socks of QRNKS. Multiple. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable sources and huge unredeemable mess. Sockpuppetry is evidence that this is in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest we keep it, but delete the sources we don't need, 213.230.86.56 (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (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.