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.
Does not meet any criterion of
WP:BIO. Autobiography (the username
Suranadira of the creator and main contributor of the page, is the first word of the title of the main article by the subject).
Apparently this is the third AfD, the first one resulted into a delete, and the second one, closed by a non-admin, resulted in a keep.
D.Lazard (
talk)
11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Suranadira, "thanks for the compliemnt..." is one of the most artfully evasive answers I've ever seen. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a lawyer would appreciate it as a piece of work of art. And I've seen EEngs history of contention on his Talk page. Nonetheless, please, "yes" or "no".
Tapered (
talk)
04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That's actually not the right question. Editors here are not required to divulge their identities. The right question is whether Suranadira has a
conflict of interest with this subject. Editors here are required to divulge their conflicts of interest. So,
Suranadira, do you have one, yes or no? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
David Eppstein No, I don't do COI editing. In particular, I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in promoting, whitewashing, or selling anything concerning or related to Armands Strazds person or work.
Suranadira (
talk)
23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. And for everybody else: being singularly focused on the subject of this article does not necessarily imply being the subject, nor having a conflict of interest with the subject, so I see no reason not to take Suranadira at their word on this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Since we can assume the subject, who's written his own article, has put his best foot forward, this is a clear delete, since all the refs are either non-independent, or passing mentions. 'Upon some of
Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."' – Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797) EEng17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Check out the influences!
[2]reply
@
EEng: Wikipedia is a practical source of information, not a status symbol. If you have a status (like Armands Strazds), you don't need status symbols.
Suranadira (
talk)
19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. He has 3 (apparently independent) Latvian bios/interviews, an article about his failed political run, and various mentions in other places, which seems like enough for
WP:GNG. There are apparently big NPOV issues (that should be tagged/fixed), but AfD is a decision between "an extremely biased article with verifiable sources" and "no article at all"... --
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The first item is a straight (and very short) CV obviously supplied by the subject. The second and third are interviews, and interviews have zero notability value. EEng19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - in the previous AFD numerous references were provided (to the point the AFD was withdrawn). Between those and what Mathnerd has pointed out, GNG has been met.
Nfitz (
talk)
23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete our sources for inclusion were much laxer in 2008, and it was sometimes wrongly thought that interviews could add towards GNG. We have since then come to understand that especially for living people we need to have a higher bar of notability to have any chance of the project ever being considered reliable. Strazds does not pass our current notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The info links at the top of the page yield almost zero, so this polymath hasn't had much overt impact on the English speaking world = no
WP:N. None of the references in the article come back as reliable, dedicated, secondary sources. And it's fun to ask for a delete on this since some of the article's editors have disguised other Wikipedia articles as outside sources. A polymath with no notoriety in the English speaking world. Delete.
Tapered (
talk)
06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources I've examined (thanks to a popular, search engine-based machine translation service) are passing mentions. The GNG isn't met - there has to be Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and that just isn't there. As a side note, the pretence that the page creator isn't the subject of the article is beyond a joke.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The closure by "delete" of the original AfD was on 28 June 2006, and the article has been re-created on 16 December 2006 by
Suranadira, who was, under the account
Turdus, the main opponent to the 2006 deletion (see
[8] for this change of username).
D.Lazard (
talk)
16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Using GS cites as a proxy for academic notability, the subject has an h-index of 2.5, which is lower than many graduate students. It is observed that there are sources in Latvian, but given the worrying COI in this case, I do not think these sources should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is extremely unlikely that an academic with such a low h-index is notable under GNG.
Sławomir Biały (
talk)
17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
delete even if this subject was notable based on independent, reliable sources, this article would require a complete rewrite to meet NPOV and BLP, so
WP:TNT applies.
Jytdog (
talk)
07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment 13 chuck 3 keep= no consensus. I am reconsidering my vote per Mathnerds comments. I suggest non-admin closure; result no consensus, and leave it for another 6 months.
L3X1(distant write)16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Consensus is based on the strength of arguments offered, not numbers. Three people who think a CV and two obviously staged "interviews" meet GNG don't outweigh 13 who see through that. And even if numbers counted, 13-to-3 is overwhelming. EEng17:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
So Nfitz and Mathnerd dunno what they're talking about? Also Blythewood, JJbers, and my votes would go under the tally, not towards a consensus. I have no idea why NAC went through my ehad to my fingers, but it is certainly a bad idea.
L3X1(distant write)18:35, 10 March 2017 (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.
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.
Does not meet any criterion of
WP:BIO. Autobiography (the username
Suranadira of the creator and main contributor of the page, is the first word of the title of the main article by the subject).
Apparently this is the third AfD, the first one resulted into a delete, and the second one, closed by a non-admin, resulted in a keep.
D.Lazard (
talk)
11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Suranadira, "thanks for the compliemnt..." is one of the most artfully evasive answers I've ever seen. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a lawyer would appreciate it as a piece of work of art. And I've seen EEngs history of contention on his Talk page. Nonetheless, please, "yes" or "no".
Tapered (
talk)
04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That's actually not the right question. Editors here are not required to divulge their identities. The right question is whether Suranadira has a
conflict of interest with this subject. Editors here are required to divulge their conflicts of interest. So,
Suranadira, do you have one, yes or no? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
David Eppstein No, I don't do COI editing. In particular, I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in promoting, whitewashing, or selling anything concerning or related to Armands Strazds person or work.
Suranadira (
talk)
23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. And for everybody else: being singularly focused on the subject of this article does not necessarily imply being the subject, nor having a conflict of interest with the subject, so I see no reason not to take Suranadira at their word on this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Since we can assume the subject, who's written his own article, has put his best foot forward, this is a clear delete, since all the refs are either non-independent, or passing mentions. 'Upon some of
Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."' – Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797) EEng17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Check out the influences!
[2]reply
@
EEng: Wikipedia is a practical source of information, not a status symbol. If you have a status (like Armands Strazds), you don't need status symbols.
Suranadira (
talk)
19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. He has 3 (apparently independent) Latvian bios/interviews, an article about his failed political run, and various mentions in other places, which seems like enough for
WP:GNG. There are apparently big NPOV issues (that should be tagged/fixed), but AfD is a decision between "an extremely biased article with verifiable sources" and "no article at all"... --
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The first item is a straight (and very short) CV obviously supplied by the subject. The second and third are interviews, and interviews have zero notability value. EEng19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - in the previous AFD numerous references were provided (to the point the AFD was withdrawn). Between those and what Mathnerd has pointed out, GNG has been met.
Nfitz (
talk)
23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete our sources for inclusion were much laxer in 2008, and it was sometimes wrongly thought that interviews could add towards GNG. We have since then come to understand that especially for living people we need to have a higher bar of notability to have any chance of the project ever being considered reliable. Strazds does not pass our current notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The info links at the top of the page yield almost zero, so this polymath hasn't had much overt impact on the English speaking world = no
WP:N. None of the references in the article come back as reliable, dedicated, secondary sources. And it's fun to ask for a delete on this since some of the article's editors have disguised other Wikipedia articles as outside sources. A polymath with no notoriety in the English speaking world. Delete.
Tapered (
talk)
06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources I've examined (thanks to a popular, search engine-based machine translation service) are passing mentions. The GNG isn't met - there has to be Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and that just isn't there. As a side note, the pretence that the page creator isn't the subject of the article is beyond a joke.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The closure by "delete" of the original AfD was on 28 June 2006, and the article has been re-created on 16 December 2006 by
Suranadira, who was, under the account
Turdus, the main opponent to the 2006 deletion (see
[8] for this change of username).
D.Lazard (
talk)
16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Using GS cites as a proxy for academic notability, the subject has an h-index of 2.5, which is lower than many graduate students. It is observed that there are sources in Latvian, but given the worrying COI in this case, I do not think these sources should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is extremely unlikely that an academic with such a low h-index is notable under GNG.
Sławomir Biały (
talk)
17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)reply
delete even if this subject was notable based on independent, reliable sources, this article would require a complete rewrite to meet NPOV and BLP, so
WP:TNT applies.
Jytdog (
talk)
07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment 13 chuck 3 keep= no consensus. I am reconsidering my vote per Mathnerds comments. I suggest non-admin closure; result no consensus, and leave it for another 6 months.
L3X1(distant write)16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Consensus is based on the strength of arguments offered, not numbers. Three people who think a CV and two obviously staged "interviews" meet GNG don't outweigh 13 who see through that. And even if numbers counted, 13-to-3 is overwhelming. EEng17:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)reply
So Nfitz and Mathnerd dunno what they're talking about? Also Blythewood, JJbers, and my votes would go under the tally, not towards a consensus. I have no idea why NAC went through my ehad to my fingers, but it is certainly a bad idea.
L3X1(distant write)18:35, 10 March 2017 (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.