Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:28, 11 May 2014

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev

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

The article should be deleted because the article was created on commercial basis. The article has a questionable sources with a poor reputation for checking the facts (WP:QS). For example, the sources 3, 4 and 6 do not contain any information about Sergei Vasiliev. The sources 5 and 9 are non-authoritative. This source can be removed according to the rule WP:LIBEL. Also, the source 5 refers to a non-authoritative frankly Russian media and BLOG In these sources, about Sergei Vasilyev says nothing, only indirectly as a mention.

That's not enough to use the link as a true source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VolgaCamper (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Questionable sources is not a valid reason to delete a page. You do not demonstrate the alleged "commercial basis" upon which the article was created, and at any rate that is not a reason to delete a page either. Please ensure that you review WP:DELETE carefully before advancing a nomination.

Also, some sources do not contain mentions of the subject because they are used in the article to support statements on other entities, such as the Guild of Purveyors. As for the allegation of the unreliability of sources supporting the illegal allegation, that is best discussed on the talk page. The statement is not libellous unless the sources are demonstrably non-reliable. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see the commercial bias myself. Now, I agree reference 9 isn't reliable, but the topic doesn't read as commercially biased and other references aren't problematic. What is the evidence for it being created on a commercial basis? Reading the last delete request, it was just full of IPs saying delete and legitimate registered users saying keep. Indeed your account has been created only a few days before making this delete request. The entire thing is bizarre. JTdale ^Talk 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few days? So what? It does not forbidden, I believe. VolgaCamper (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable sources, in my view, are the reason for deletion. We must regard the significance of the object, relying on general criteria. The criteria clearly point that need reliable sources which widely describe the object of the article. (WP:GNG - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list)

Accordingly, if the source is an unreliable and/or does not describe a person informatively as far as it's requires by the rules, the article must be deleted as inappropriate to the general criteria of significance. (WP:GNG - "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material) VolgaCamper (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Keep'''. I don't see the commercial bias myself. Now, I agree reference 9 isn't reliable, but the topic doesn't read as commercially biased and other references aren't problematic. What is the evidence for it being created on a commercial basis? Reading the last delete request, it was just full of IPs saying delete and legitimate registered users saying keep. Indeed your account has been created only a few days before making this delete request. The entire thing is bizarre. [[User:JTdale|<font color="maroon">'''JTdale'''</font>]]  [[User talk:JTdale|<sup><font color="green">'''Talk'''</font></sup>]] 15:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
+::A few days? So what? It does not forbidden, I believe. [[User:VolgaCamper|VolgaCamper]] ([[User talk:VolgaCamper|talk]]) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. Questionable sources, in my view, are the reason for deletion. We must regard the significance of the object, relying on general criteria. The criteria clearly point that need reliable sources which widely describe the object of the article. ([[Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline|WP:GNG - ''If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'']])