- 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. Sans prejudice. NativeForeigner Talk 09:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kanat Auyesbay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although in the Kazak WP, there is no notability by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I was under the impression that notability is not language specific. The individual appears to be notable in Kazakhstan which should be sufficient. I would suggest translation from Kazakh wikipedia.-- Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Question Do all non-English wikis have the same standards as the English language one? If so that might be an argument, especially if there are RS sources attached. Though I hasten to note that there are a lot of articles on our own wiki that should not be here. So it's not conclusive. But unless the existence of a corresponding article on another wiki confers a presumption of notability, I am leaning towards delete. At present it doesn't seem to meet our standards. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Answer No, they do not. -- j⚛e decker talk 14:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wait. This article is not even a month old. A dedicated editor could translate the original native article for this one. There are ways to ask for help in doing so, more than the expand template. If that is not done, nor if the article is not further sourced or expanded, then it should be deleted for non-notability. — Wylie pedia 08:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Relist, please It's certainly beyond my capability to read through the Kazakh sources, but there is quite a bit of material and apparent references there. Looking at the Wikipedia embassy, I was able to find a single editor, not currently active, who lists Kazakh, and I've left them a note. [1] While I think there's a good chance we won't get a response, I don't see problems pressing enough that we can't give this another seven days. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a one week delay. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the answer to my question above. The article does not currently meet our standards. I will reconsider if substantive improvements are made. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE ( talk) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to recreation of a more substantially referenced article. Existing source is inadequate for WP:BIO, but the Kazakh article has a lot more sources listed. I don't read a word of Kazakh, so I can't gauge the quality of these sources, so I'll leave that to a native speaker to try. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:36, 7 March 2014 (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. Sans prejudice. NativeForeigner Talk 09:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Kanat Auyesbay ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although in the Kazak WP, there is no notability by our standards. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I was under the impression that notability is not language specific. The individual appears to be notable in Kazakhstan which should be sufficient. I would suggest translation from Kazakh wikipedia.-- Flaming Ferrari ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Question Do all non-English wikis have the same standards as the English language one? If so that might be an argument, especially if there are RS sources attached. Though I hasten to note that there are a lot of articles on our own wiki that should not be here. So it's not conclusive. But unless the existence of a corresponding article on another wiki confers a presumption of notability, I am leaning towards delete. At present it doesn't seem to meet our standards. -
Ad Orientem (
talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Answer No, they do not. -- j⚛e decker talk 14:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wait. This article is not even a month old. A dedicated editor could translate the original native article for this one. There are ways to ask for help in doing so, more than the expand template. If that is not done, nor if the article is not further sourced or expanded, then it should be deleted for non-notability. — Wylie pedia 08:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Relist, please It's certainly beyond my capability to read through the Kazakh sources, but there is quite a bit of material and apparent references there. Looking at the Wikipedia embassy, I was able to find a single editor, not currently active, who lists Kazakh, and I've left them a note. [1] While I think there's a good chance we won't get a response, I don't see problems pressing enough that we can't give this another seven days. -- j⚛e decker talk 15:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection to a one week delay. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the answer to my question above. The article does not currently meet our standards. I will reconsider if substantive improvements are made. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SmartSE ( talk) 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to recreation of a more substantially referenced article. Existing source is inadequate for WP:BIO, but the Kazakh article has a lot more sources listed. I don't read a word of Kazakh, so I can't gauge the quality of these sources, so I'll leave that to a native speaker to try. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:36, 7 March 2014 (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.