Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kholmat Odilov

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kholmat Odilov

[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)

I don't know where to begin here. Someone (signing with the wrong username, weirdly) left a message on my talk page, informing me someone tagged it for speedy deletion. I took a look at the page history and it appears to me that for some reason, multiple new accounts (I don't know if they're SPs or have a COI) are all deleting and re-adding the bio speedy tag. I am not sure what's going on here. Anyhow, this article is quite poorly-written and the vast majority of its references are from user-generated pages such as Genius and YouTube, as well as Amazon and Spotify. Searching "Kholmat Odilov" in Google and going to news shows absolutely zero results, and everything else is just primary sources and sites like Soundcloud. This singer probably just isn't notable. This whole article has way too many issues and a huge cleanup is needed if it's going to be kept. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly some kind of trickery afoot here, what with new accounts editing random drafts that they couldn't have possibly found on their own and Mama1938 dumping this across languages. Best case is some friends or genuine fans of this individual coordinating over some Discord somewhere, worst case is UPE crosswiki spam. Haven't had the leisure to look at the sources yet, but I'd be surprised to find anything good. Angry Harpy‍^talk 06:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact I think it would qualify for speedy deletion, but it's probably better to let this discussion run its course. An unambiguous attempt to promote a completely unnotable person. I made searches on three search facilities (Google, Duckduckgo, and Privacy Wall) and in the case of Google both on a computer and on a phone, which, as is often the case, gave distinctly different results. I searched for this person using both his Russian name and the English transcription of it. There were hits which were not about this person at all, and various other hits which were totally irrelevant, such as a site which gave statistics about search terms, and a site which merely listed results of searches on Wikipedia related to Seasonal Affective Disorder. (It seems that page came up in my searches because Kholmat Odilov's pseudonym "Sád Pérson" got confused with the acronym SAD for Seasonal Affective Disorder.) Ignoring all those, and considering just hits actually about this person, I found articles about him on nine Wikipedias (English, Italian, Uzbek, Tatar, French, Azeri aka Azerbaijani, Afrikaans, Dutch, and Spanish), Wikipedia mirrors, a couple of download sites, a couple of dead links, and nothing better than that. As I said above, a completely unnotable person. JBW (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, just now I have added sources from Independent Administrative sources that cannot be edited in any way, my friend, learn to search more carefully, of course, while in the USA, you cannot find anything about this person, but look at the rest of the sources on Wikipedia, I think you will understand everything;)))--80.72.119.252 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have no idea why you think I am in the USA. However, the essential point of your message seems to be that I considered only what I had found on searching, not what is cited in the article. I was assuming that the references in the article were already covered by WaddlesJP13's statement that "the vast majority of its references are from user-generated pages such as Genius and YouTube, as well as Amazon and Spotify”, and that I didn’t need to repeat that. However, since you have raised the matter, I will answer that point.

This is a classic case of WP:BOMBARD, i.e. the mistaken notion that notability of a subject can be established by posting dozens of references to numerous sources, without regard to the quality of those sources. At present there are 52 references in the article. I have taken a random sample of a quarter of them, and they are as follows.

(1) A dead link, (2) A listing of the participants in a concert and competition. Odilov is listed as one of a huge number of participants. He appears in the category "Solo singing 12-15 years". (3) Dutch Wikipedia. (4) Spotify. (5) Another competition, in which Odilov is again listed among many other participants. This time he received a few certificates for his performances, but did not win any event. (6) Another dead link. (7) A download site. (8) A link to a search on www.google.ru for "Kholmat Odilov Musician” (Which, incidentally, gave a total of 6 hits, including one to this English Wikipedia article and one to a redirect to it. None of the other four hits were any better as sources.) (8) Another dead link. (9) Another dead link. (10) Ukrainian Wikipedia. (11) Another download page. (12) A report on a sports competition among schools. Odilov gets one very brief single sentence mention. (13) Yet another dead link.

I have also briefly glanced at others outside that random sample, and saw nothing better.

Not a single one of those does anything whatever to suggest notability in the terms of Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Not 52 references of that quality nor 252 of them can demonstrate that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. If you can point to even one reference which is better than all those, I shall be willing to reconsider the matter, but at present I have seen nothing whatever to even vaguely suggest notability in Wikipedia’s terms. JBW (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem, keep a couple of links from the Administration of the city of Ryazan (you can check the site on the English version of the article about Ryazan, and in the Russian-language segment, keep the links: 1 link, 2 link, 3 link, 4 link, 5 link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.119.252 (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If stuff like this counted toward notability, I could have a Wikipedia article. WP:SIGCOV is what's needed, and these links are the opposite of it. Angry Harpy‍^talk 12:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so, the sources confirm the identity, since the artist got there, besides there is the official website of the Ryazan Administration, check all the sources, then help to add more sources, and correct the errors in the article, I will be very grateful)--176.59.47.3 (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely non-notable, I've seen some terrible articles via checking contributions of those reported to UAA, this is in a similar state to articles I have seen there, all of which were speedied. Official website does not count towards notability "the sources confirm the identity, since the artist got there" that's not what the issue is, the issue is notability which the sources fail at demonstrating. If it were up to me I would delete and salt. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For some reason this article appeared on the cricket new articles list, which sparked my interest and I originally nominated it for speedy deletion as I too came to the same conclusion with the sources, none of the sources I checked established subject notability and appeared to be added en-masse to try and make the subject appear referenced and hence notable. StickyWicket (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any sources that qualify towards WP:SIGCOV. Looks like some sort of inept promotional campaign. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2021 (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.