Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aynishan Quliyeva

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) — Music1201 ^talk 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aynishan Quliyeva

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

An Azerbaijani national selection candidate competing to represent her country at one of many Eurovision Song Contests, who happened to make it to the final (like dozens of others from 2008 on) but lost in the end. Also recently unsuccessfully participated in The Voice of Turkey. This "achievements", in my opinion, barely represent notability. Parishan (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. The current sources are mere mentions and there's nothing on Google. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Of course the sources mentions things. She has participated in National final, had participated in The Voice. Sources do verify it. Clear WP:GNG. We dont change guidelines or try to minimize sources importance to get a article deleted. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "not known singer" as you claim it also has a Azeri Wiki page and when I search for her name plenty of sourcing etc is found. And no WP:Otherstuffexists does not apply to this comment. The fact that she has a Wiki page in her national language is a clear indicator that she is not a "forgotten talent show singer". --BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but your argument seems to me like a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. First of all, an article about Quliyeva consisting of just two words was created on az:wiki on the same day you created this article on en:wiki and by an anonymous user who reached out to other users in English admitting lack of proficiency in Azeri and inviting them to contribute, which (correct me if I am wrong) leads me to a logical conclusion that the you might be the creator of the article about Quliyeva on az:wiki. If my guess is right, then you referring to an article you created in a different project as a sign of notability is rather odd. Later the article did grow slightly, but even its author's self-admitted lack of proficiency in Azeri would not prevent them from noticing that the highlight of the article is still an overly detailed description of Quliyeva's participation in the selection process to represent Azerbaijan in the ESC back in 2011. The rest is divided evenly between describing merits of her family members and a couple of other contest failures. Should I note: all this in Azeri and without citing any sources. Second of all, I must agree with CerealKillerYum: the existence of sources where she happens to be mentioned does not automatically guarantee notability. We cannot be having articles about every single candidate that has ever advanced in the local selection final for Eurovision since 1956 or every participant of every national edition of The Voice. Parishan (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BabbaQ. My searches on Google turn up sources, too, some in other languages unfortunately (since I'm not very proficient in these languages.). Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the sources? I double checked and found a few but they mostly don't appear to be notable sources (ie [1] ). [2] This EuroVision mention of her seems to be the only notable source that appeared on Google. It is only a mention though so it doesn't count as a source. If there are no notable sources for a subject, it fails GNG.CerealKillerYum (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best instead because the only best claim here is the Eurovision and even then, this is still questionable. Draft if needed but this is still questionable for better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is references, she has participated both in national final for eurovison and Turkish The Voice. It is sourced and not at all questionable. Pretty strange voting rationale.BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

give us the sources here. They need to be notable sources. A fan blog article doesn't count. CerealKillerYum (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of people have participated in those. How does this make her notable? Parishan (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here Parishan. Just because other people have participated and are not notable doesnt mean that she is non-notable per association. And Cerealkilleryum, you can twist it all you want. The article is sourced and clear.BabbaQ (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

eurovisionary.com and esccovers.com are not reliable sources. Notability can not be obtain from sources such as those. You need a reputable newspaper with an editorial staff. Because of this, Aynishan Quliyeva fails WP:GNG CerealKillerYum (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes her notable? Being mentioned in a source does not guarantee notability. Parishan (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable in two national level competitions: Eurovision and the voice, passes music notability.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2016 (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.