Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:57, 9 April 2014

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev

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

Looks like WP:PROMOTION. All sources refer to Russian-language sites. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN Gdv777 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: WP:PROMOTION is not applicable as the sources are reliably sources. WP:ANYBIO specifies additional caveats, but for the basic inclusion, WP:BASIC is relevant. WP:POLITICIAN, this article passes #2 of it. In any case, just the fact that it is in another language does not justify its deletion. See WP:NOENG. It also passes the general notability guideline. Ging287 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:: As stated above WP:PROMOTION does not apply because the article is well cited and merely because the sources are Russian does not justify a deletion. In order to make the information more credible, additional sources in English have been added. The article passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability guideline. Article does not fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC applies as person has considerable coverage in both Russia and Western press. • Wallnut tree (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2014

I think, it fails #2 of WP:POLITICIAN because the goals of the Guild of Purveyors slightly differ from politics - you can read it on their website (here). In my opinion, it also fails of WP:GNG, because of it's sources (WP:NOR). So, I think that the article must be deleted. Gdv777 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a politican, and then he passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN or he isn't one, and the additional caveat doesn't qualify. Ging287 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Numerous users and IP users have been removing/omitting sources, for seemingly vague reasons. 'Black PR' and other stuff. Ging287 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article is made of unverified information - so it should be deleted. Kliff93 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 :<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Northamerica1000|NorthAmerica]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|1000]]</sup> 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
 <hr style="width:55%;" />
+Now the article is made of unverified information - so it should be deleted. [[User:Kliff93|Kliff93]] ([[User talk:Kliff93|talk]]) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)