This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (the page was previously deleted as being not notable, and I asked for it to be moved to a draftspace (per my discussion with the editor who deleted it). I redid my own translation of the page to make sure it included more content and sources, so I think this version is at least better geared at passing the notability test). --Losipov (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Corwin of Amber: I was initially going to decline as the Russian article looks to have more sourcing on the Russian Wikipedia but I see in the AfD that Missvain mentioned that the sourcing only mentioned him in passing. I've tagged them as well - would the sourcing in the Russian Wikipedia article be enough to overturn the prior AfD? Also, Losipov, I recommend reviewing the Russian article and bringing over any sourcing that looks promising. While there is more sourcing in the article, one thing that we look for as admins is whether or not the sourcing would be enough for the article to potentially survive another round at AfD. If it looks very unlikely to survive AfD again, speedy is sometimes the kinder option since it's harder to justify bringing back an article that's been deleted through multiple AfDs. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)15:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack that's fair. So in this version, there are 9 in-line citations and 1 external link. In the Russian Wiki article, there are 41 with one video note. The problem that I encountered is what comes over to this Wiki easily. When I was doing the translation in ContentTranslation, some of the sources that I wanted to use were only available in a template, and when I published the page to my own userspace, it came littered with referencing errors. If I kept that version untouched, it would mean having content that was unsourced and massive red text in the form of errors. I can definitely look and see what can be brought over now, but I wanted to clarify why this might be a "bad" article in the eyes of some.
As a side note, Missvain might have said that because the original version of the article seemed to have been done without using the Russian Wikipedia page. In addition, I think speedy deletion was used because one of the users who recreated the page was blocked.
And sorry for the long response (lol), but I did put the expansion tag at the top in case another editor wanted to add stuff from the Russian Wiki. For these reasons that's why I think the page should stay. Others are free to disagree, though. Losipov (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
