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. This player seems to be the "victim" of discussion surrounding the professional standing of an entire league. When the article was created, it appears that consensus was that the league WAS professional. There still does not appear to be consensus that the league is NOT professional - include links provided below that show that it is. The issue surrounding the league should be resolved through RFC once-and-for-all before additional nominations on any of the players or teams in that league the panda ₯’ 10:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Masimov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This was deleted at AfD last month, and now recreated and nominated for CSD G4. There is talk page discussion that it should be kept (copied lower) and I think the notability may have changed between then an now. I thus opt for relisting at AfD. I consider myself neutral on the topic of deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per player had good season and just scored a goal in Azerbaijan Cup. How come articles like Connor Mahoney and Giorgio Rasulo exist, yet a player who played for country's top flight club shouldn't have his own article? Article meets WP:GNG standard.--Yacatisma 19:16, 22 May 2014 (copied from talk page)
• Keep per Yacatisma.--Janavar (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC) (copied from talk page)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Nothing has changed in the last four weeks. He's played a few more matches, but since the Azerbaijan Premier League is not confirmed as fully-pro, this does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. The coverage he has received continues only to be routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Sir Sputnik, Azerbaijan Premier League is fully-pro, if you check this article.http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/azerbaijan_PFL_EPFL.htm and here is even membership link http://www.epfl-europeanleagues.com/profile_aze_pfl.htm --Yacatisma 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That source was considered and reject at the last discussion of the Azerbaijan Premier League at WT:FPL on the grounds that the membership criteria for the EPFL are ambiguous. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on ... you claimed it was ambiguous. No one agreed with you. It certainly wasn't rejected by anyone other than you. There was no clear consensus on that discussion. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per WP:GNG and league is truly part of EPFL, so it does meet fully-pro.--NovaSkola (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per NovaSkola and Yacatisma. Samir Masimov notability people. --►Cekli829 06:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --►Cekli829 06:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - still fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant, third-party coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not appeared in a fully-professional league). His cup appearance is not enough, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments highlight the weakness of those wanting to keep. GiantSnowman 11:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GiantSnowman - No evidence of notability - Fails GNG + NFOOTBALL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. The Azerbaijan Premier League's membership of EPFL does not mean it is fully-professional. Number 57 21:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG with an unusual amount of Russian and Azerbaijani media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Also meets WP:NFOOTY as plays in fully professional league as per [8]. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last comment proves nothing. It has been repeatedly pointed out that membership of the EPFL does not mean a league is fully professional. Number 57 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Repeatedly? Go through the list of members. There's only a single member that's even somewhat debatable, and that's Azerbaijan. We've listed Azerbaijan as a fully-professional league for years until a few weeks ago. And yet, in all the discussion, no one has found any evidence that the league is not fully professional. If it walks like a duck ... Though given the article easily passes WP:GNG I don't know why the focus of the discussion has been on WP:NFOOTY of which there is a lack of consensus. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, repeatedly. Have a look at the talk page archives of WP:FPL. And you are also being misleading in your claim about WP:NFOOTY. You and a small number of other editors don't like it, but my experience in the past several years is that most are in favour of it, even if it is because there is no better alternative. Number 57 00:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at the talk page archives of WP:FPL. And you are also being misleading in your claim about WP:NFOOTY. There have not been years of discussion about Azerbaijan, nor has there been previous discussion about that reference. Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2014 (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.