Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirfatyh Zakiev

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. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirfatyh Zakiev[edit]

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

The person "Mirfatyh Zakiev" lacks notability and the whole article sounds like a WP:RESUME and WP:PROMOTION. He's an author who promote fringe theories. For example, look at one of his works "Origin of Türks and Tatars - Third chapter - Ancient Türkic-speaking areas" link and see how he created Turkic origin for several ancient Mesopotamian, Near Eastern and Central Asian groups (from Sumerians to Sogdians and Parthians) which is against academic references and scholary sources. I haven't see other experts, notable historians and linguists cited his works. His works look like pseudo-history and pseudo-linguistics stuff. Only a long-term abuser Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34 spammed the English Wikipedia with Zakiev's texts, an example. The whole article is based on his CV (the only cited reference). That's another reason why I think this article is advertising and promotional stuff. Having a WP article and then inserting his fringe works on the articles. Wario-Man (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep totally irrelevant argumentation. Delete request reflects pan-Indo-European intentions by OP. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have 3 edits which two of them are disruptive edits [1], [2] and now you appeared here and posted personal attack instead of writing your rationale. Plus, as a new user, how did you find this page? AfD does not work by posting stuff like that. --Wario-Man (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to proof your claims. As a new member I am allowed to take part in this census. I didn't see any set of reasons or a logical basis for your beliefs. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my nomination and rationale --Wario-Man (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you should strike your duplicate delete vote - the nominate serves as a delete vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per WP:V rather than per WP:N. There are some things listed here that could plausibly pass WP:PROF, for instance his membership in something named to sound like a national academy or his rectorship of the Kazan State Pedagogical University (despite its having become defunct in 2005). But a lot of eastern European academics have puffed-up articles that look like this and a lot of the academy memberships they list are really an organization they made up one day to make their vita look good. So even though in many cases we accept curricula vitarum as reliable sources for the boring details of academics' education and employment histories (when they are not significant to the question of whether the academics are notable), in this case I think we need more. Unless we can turn up sources that make the more significant claims here verifiable, I think we must delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both, WP:V and WP:N are put out of action by Scholar.google results. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar results also shows the name of a pseudo-scientist like Anatole Klyosov and his works. But nobody uses Klyosov's works on WP. And GS does not make his works WP:RS. Same for Mirfatyh Zakiev. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Klysov is a biochemist, he has no right to talk about history, his works can only be used for chemical facts not history. But pvanrb.ru and kpfu.ru do make MZ's works WP:RS, just to name a few. See for Latin/Cyrillic Google Scholar results. And the low citation rate of MZ in english sources does not make his works non WP:RS. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar results show single-digit citation counts, far below the level needed for WP:PROF#C1. Probably this is at least in part a language issue rather than a nobody-cites-him issue, but it doesn't make a difference, as either way we have no evidence for notability of that sort. And in any case, even if he were highly cited, we would not be able to have an article without being able to write anything verifiable about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is how GS results guarantee a WP page for Zakiev? How many notable works written by Zakiev and published or translated via academic sources? How many other scholars have cited or mentioned him in their works? The link to one of his works in my rationale, clearly shows a WP:FRINGE author and his WP article is just promotional/ad stuff. If you see Klyosov has an article here, because he's well-known for pseudo-scientific views and works. Covered by various sources and they are WP:VER. But how is Zakiev a notable person who deserves his own article, and why we should keep his article? Nothing in my opinion. --Wario-Man (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood you right, one has to become famous for it's pseudo-scientific works to get a WP page? How awful is that? In my opinion we should ask for WP:RS in english language, rather then to delete the page. --Kazakh-Lion (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reasons to remove a page that informs WP readers of an outstanding scholar in Russia who dedicated his efforts to advance the science of Turkology. His many works, his position as an elected Academician, the depth and width of his work and contributions are valued not only by the turkologists, but many other overlapping disciplines. M.Zakiev was fearlessly presenting his works during unfavorable internal policies of the Soviet regime, and was persecuted as soon as Russia reverted back to intellectual dark ages in 2000 AD, when he was dismissed from heading Institute of Linguistic and History. There is no way to badmouth him for his studies or the publication of his studies. Whoever does not like that he illuminated the Turkic-Sumer linguistic links may also not like the recent genetic confirmation that Sumer's decedents carry the same Y-DNA R1b haplogroup as the nomadic Kurganians and the majority of the European and Turkic people. Should we remove the DNA results and their authors from the WP? This is science, and science does not move backward. Deleting a biographical article on a definitely outstanding scholar would not do any damage to the esteemed scholar, but would be a serious disservice to the WP and its readers. Politicizing WP and science is a bad suggestion. The article is somewhat obsolete, it does not cover the last two decades, and could be improved because M.Zakiev, in spite of his age, is still an active scientist of a world class. Vote Keep. Barefact (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue the rights or wrongs of Zakiev's theories. What we are interested in here at AfD is whether his ideas are notable. For that it is not enough that he is published - that is just an academic doing his job. For notability, other scholars have to have discussed his work, that is, have taken note of him. Provide evidence of that and he will pass the criteria at WP:PROF SpinningSpark 00:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - he seems to meet criteria #3 on WP:SCHOLAR at least as "a full member of the Academy of Sciences of the Tatarstan Republic"; and WP:POLITICIAN for serving "as a Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar ASSR". Problem is, there are no sources in the article to substantiate anything besides his own CV. I did find an English version of his CV, for what it's worth, on a blocked site. You'll have to cut and reassemble and paste without the spaces. (http:// s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/20Roots/ZakievGenesis/ZakievBiographyEn .htm) There are also links to his writings and sourcing in scholarly publications. [[3]] [[4]]. Kazakh-Lion and Barefact - can either of you add sourcing? TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Even if he does satisfy any of the PROF or POLITICIAN criteria, the article as it stands is clearly too promotional, and has no sources apart from the dude's personal CV written in Russian. — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as chariman of the Tatar ASSR Supreme Soviet he passes WP:POLITICIAN if nothing else. Multiple book sources confirm this [5][6][7]. Probably also gets past WP:PROF as an Academy of Sciences member. SpinningSpark 00:29, 10 June 2018 (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.