- 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. No consensus based on arguments to delete. A note to nom: you nomination IS a !vote to delete - please do not !vote again as you did - twice. Those additional !votes are disruptive and have been ignored the panda ₯’ 10:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (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, 5, 7 do not contain any information about Sergei Vasiliev. The source 9 is 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 These sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP) The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough. VolgaCamper ( talk) 18:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like article refers only to unreliable resources and to resourses which do not include information about object. I see that other users refer to the same factor. Actually I do not understand why this article contains resourses which do not include information about object. I do not think that it is ok fir Wikipedia. 89.175.32.50 ( talk) 09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)— 89.175.32.50 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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)
- 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)
- A few days? So what? It does not forbidden, I believe. 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. ( 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)
- It should be noted that the vote above is a double made by the nominator. M. Caecilius ( talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. In the previous nomination, I have already gave my comments on each source. And I will write here again. First, materials from the official web site were used, they are not allowed to be taken into account according to the rules (2,10). In accordance with GNG, as I wrote in the previous nomination, sources where significant coverage of the event is made are necessary. Links number 3, 4 and 6 do not even mention Vasiliev. Link 9 is non-authoritative and unreliable, and so doesn't comply with the rules. The most interesting situations is with reference number 5. In addition, to the fact that there is not so much information about Vasiliev as required by the rules, the links refer to the various unreliable resources (non-authoritative Russian media, the editors of which are not even specified) and the blog of unknown Igolkin. References 7 and 8 contain the same text with not sufficient amount of data about Vasiliev and where just the situations about his scandal is described, what is obviously not enough to prove the significance. Just the link number 1 remains, however it provides little information about Vasiliev, moreover is written with a clear touch of slander. But still it's not the most important fact, because in accordance with the 3 note of GNG few reliable sources describing the subject of the article in details are necessary. I'm still waiting for the comments, I haven't received them the last time. 213.87.129.1 ( talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)— 213.87.129.1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete I have nominated this article for deletion earlier. Nothing has changed - an article is biased and discredites Vasiliev's reputation. Numerous violations of the rules of Wikipedia are ignored. Knowledge of Russian allows me to conclude that most of these sources are unreliable, so I share the position of VolgaCamper about them. According to WP:ALIVE, the content of article should be edited from WP:NPV, now that core content policy is violated. Gdv777 ( talk) 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is simply marvellous, the amount of misunderstanding demonstrated of the policy based perhaps more on personal bias than on a desire to improve this encyclopaedia. What, shall we start our crusade on Wikipedia pages that contain some sources that some editors argue to be unreliable and summarily delete them? Has no one ever read the FAQ page?
- It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
- What manner of editorial bias is there that has not been linked to outside sources? The sources could be biased, but you cannot simply argue that they are unreliable simply because "I know Russian!" Is this not, I ask, a cause to
WP:BEBOLD and add into the article what you consider to be non-biased sources? I reiterate: Wikipedia does not delete pages because it refers to some outside sources, not patently unreliable (like a Facebook page or some sort of "anti-blah foundation"), which some editor believes to be biased. If we did, then you'll quickly see the number of pages drop down to some fraction of a percent of what we have right now. To suggest that we should do so is complete and blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies and worries me a great deal, especially as many votes are made by IP addresses that are apparently single-purposed like
[1] and
[2] (possible sock/meatpuppet concerns too). I stand by my conviction that this nomination has been made in error, supported in error, and should be snowball closed as such.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have a dynamic IP, so it seems that this is my first edit in the discussion. In fact, I spoke in previous nomination. In addition, I have no relation to any of the participants of the discussion. As for the sources, they are unreliable, because their authors are non-authoritative in this issue. Who is Polina Popova, having published the article on Ground Report immediately after registration? Who is Igolkin, on whose blog refers Digital Journal? Bias in sources – is not the main reason to delete the article. The main reasons are the unreliability of the sources and lack of information about Vasiliev (not about the company) in them.
213.87.129.13 (
talk)
05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you appear to be
a single-purposed account who is not here so much to build an encyclopaedia as you are to push your viewpoint on this topic. Speaking of the sources, if any allegation appear biased and not well-sourced, I re-re-iterate: why don't you
WP:BEBOLD and go fix it, perhaps participating in a Talk Page discussion with other editors if they disagree? Calling for the deletion of the whole page because of a single statement you take issue with smacks of
censorship, which I will not stand for.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let’s read what is written in the rules: "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". Now let’s consider sources. 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – nothing is written about Vasiliev. 9 - non-reliable sources. 8 – too few information about Vasiliev, moreover it’s a news article, we shouldn’t forget about WP:NTEMP. Only the link №1 remains, to few information about Vasiliev again, it's specified in WP:GNG that the presence of a few sources is required (see the third note). 213.87.132.117 ( talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you appear to be
a single-purposed account who is not here so much to build an encyclopaedia as you are to push your viewpoint on this topic. Speaking of the sources, if any allegation appear biased and not well-sourced, I re-re-iterate: why don't you
WP:BEBOLD and go fix it, perhaps participating in a Talk Page discussion with other editors if they disagree? Calling for the deletion of the whole page because of a single statement you take issue with smacks of
censorship, which I will not stand for.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have a dynamic IP, so it seems that this is my first edit in the discussion. In fact, I spoke in previous nomination. In addition, I have no relation to any of the participants of the discussion. As for the sources, they are unreliable, because their authors are non-authoritative in this issue. Who is Polina Popova, having published the article on Ground Report immediately after registration? Who is Igolkin, on whose blog refers Digital Journal? Bias in sources – is not the main reason to delete the article. The main reasons are the unreliability of the sources and lack of information about Vasiliev (not about the company) in them.
213.87.129.13 (
talk)
05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Albeit the author shouldn't matter in this, he's canvassed multiple admin's userpages in attempt to get this article deleted. Although my official argument is the general notability guideline. This meets that. Tutelary ( talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Tutelary: Please, explain, what do you see the correspondence of the article to the general notability guidence in? What sources given in the article are both reliable, independent and significantly cover the topic? VolgaCamper ( talk) 03:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that being online, Tutelary can not answer my question. She has no counter-arguments. Ignoring questions looks very strange.
Firstly, the sources 3, 4 and 6, 5, 7 have no any information about Sergei Vasiliev. Secondly, the article about his biography. The sources 8 and 9 have some information, but the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP). The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Thirdly, as noted earlier, only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough.
Also, the sources 8 and 9 do not only contradict the rule, but WP:GNG, because according to this rule need enough description of his personality to extract encyclopedic information about him. And 9 source also unreliable. VolgaCamper ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 01:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete A business man who owns a non-notable company and chairs a non-notable guild. He is in a legal battle with his non-notable business partner and is receipient of the Highest Public Award of the Russian Federation and the prestigious order badge from the Russian Orthodox Church. These are non-notable awards, as far as I can see. There is no article of him in the Russian language, and the article suffers from WP:O. An uncontroversial delete. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Article should be deleted because the article does not comply with WP:GNG, because sources do not have enough full description of the person, and the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP) Also, in some sources there is no information at all. Only one source has some information, but it is not enough, it requires two or three reliable sources. It looks as though most of the article is an author's invention. VolgaCamper ( talk) 10:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have never received the answers to my arguments. The sources do not meet the requirements that are described in WP:GNG. Delete. 213.87.133.223 ( talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
The result was no consensus. No consensus based on arguments to delete. A note to nom: you nomination IS a !vote to delete - please do not !vote again as you did - twice. Those additional !votes are disruptive and have been ignored the panda ₯’ 10:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
- Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (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, 5, 7 do not contain any information about Sergei Vasiliev. The source 9 is 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 These sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP) The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough. VolgaCamper ( talk) 18:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like article refers only to unreliable resources and to resourses which do not include information about object. I see that other users refer to the same factor. Actually I do not understand why this article contains resourses which do not include information about object. I do not think that it is ok fir Wikipedia. 89.175.32.50 ( talk) 09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)— 89.175.32.50 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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)
- 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)
- A few days? So what? It does not forbidden, I believe. 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. ( 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)
- It should be noted that the vote above is a double made by the nominator. M. Caecilius ( talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. In the previous nomination, I have already gave my comments on each source. And I will write here again. First, materials from the official web site were used, they are not allowed to be taken into account according to the rules (2,10). In accordance with GNG, as I wrote in the previous nomination, sources where significant coverage of the event is made are necessary. Links number 3, 4 and 6 do not even mention Vasiliev. Link 9 is non-authoritative and unreliable, and so doesn't comply with the rules. The most interesting situations is with reference number 5. In addition, to the fact that there is not so much information about Vasiliev as required by the rules, the links refer to the various unreliable resources (non-authoritative Russian media, the editors of which are not even specified) and the blog of unknown Igolkin. References 7 and 8 contain the same text with not sufficient amount of data about Vasiliev and where just the situations about his scandal is described, what is obviously not enough to prove the significance. Just the link number 1 remains, however it provides little information about Vasiliev, moreover is written with a clear touch of slander. But still it's not the most important fact, because in accordance with the 3 note of GNG few reliable sources describing the subject of the article in details are necessary. I'm still waiting for the comments, I haven't received them the last time. 213.87.129.1 ( talk) 06:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)— 213.87.129.1 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete I have nominated this article for deletion earlier. Nothing has changed - an article is biased and discredites Vasiliev's reputation. Numerous violations of the rules of Wikipedia are ignored. Knowledge of Russian allows me to conclude that most of these sources are unreliable, so I share the position of VolgaCamper about them. According to WP:ALIVE, the content of article should be edited from WP:NPV, now that core content policy is violated. Gdv777 ( talk) 15:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is simply marvellous, the amount of misunderstanding demonstrated of the policy based perhaps more on personal bias than on a desire to improve this encyclopaedia. What, shall we start our crusade on Wikipedia pages that contain some sources that some editors argue to be unreliable and summarily delete them? Has no one ever read the FAQ page?
- It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.
- What manner of editorial bias is there that has not been linked to outside sources? The sources could be biased, but you cannot simply argue that they are unreliable simply because "I know Russian!" Is this not, I ask, a cause to
WP:BEBOLD and add into the article what you consider to be non-biased sources? I reiterate: Wikipedia does not delete pages because it refers to some outside sources, not patently unreliable (like a Facebook page or some sort of "anti-blah foundation"), which some editor believes to be biased. If we did, then you'll quickly see the number of pages drop down to some fraction of a percent of what we have right now. To suggest that we should do so is complete and blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies and worries me a great deal, especially as many votes are made by IP addresses that are apparently single-purposed like
[1] and
[2] (possible sock/meatpuppet concerns too). I stand by my conviction that this nomination has been made in error, supported in error, and should be snowball closed as such.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
20:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have a dynamic IP, so it seems that this is my first edit in the discussion. In fact, I spoke in previous nomination. In addition, I have no relation to any of the participants of the discussion. As for the sources, they are unreliable, because their authors are non-authoritative in this issue. Who is Polina Popova, having published the article on Ground Report immediately after registration? Who is Igolkin, on whose blog refers Digital Journal? Bias in sources – is not the main reason to delete the article. The main reasons are the unreliability of the sources and lack of information about Vasiliev (not about the company) in them.
213.87.129.13 (
talk)
05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you appear to be
a single-purposed account who is not here so much to build an encyclopaedia as you are to push your viewpoint on this topic. Speaking of the sources, if any allegation appear biased and not well-sourced, I re-re-iterate: why don't you
WP:BEBOLD and go fix it, perhaps participating in a Talk Page discussion with other editors if they disagree? Calling for the deletion of the whole page because of a single statement you take issue with smacks of
censorship, which I will not stand for.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Let’s read what is written in the rules: "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". Now let’s consider sources. 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – nothing is written about Vasiliev. 9 - non-reliable sources. 8 – too few information about Vasiliev, moreover it’s a news article, we shouldn’t forget about WP:NTEMP. Only the link №1 remains, to few information about Vasiliev again, it's specified in WP:GNG that the presence of a few sources is required (see the third note). 213.87.132.117 ( talk) 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is that you appear to be
a single-purposed account who is not here so much to build an encyclopaedia as you are to push your viewpoint on this topic. Speaking of the sources, if any allegation appear biased and not well-sourced, I re-re-iterate: why don't you
WP:BEBOLD and go fix it, perhaps participating in a Talk Page discussion with other editors if they disagree? Calling for the deletion of the whole page because of a single statement you take issue with smacks of
censorship, which I will not stand for.
M. Caecilius (
talk)
06:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have a dynamic IP, so it seems that this is my first edit in the discussion. In fact, I spoke in previous nomination. In addition, I have no relation to any of the participants of the discussion. As for the sources, they are unreliable, because their authors are non-authoritative in this issue. Who is Polina Popova, having published the article on Ground Report immediately after registration? Who is Igolkin, on whose blog refers Digital Journal? Bias in sources – is not the main reason to delete the article. The main reasons are the unreliability of the sources and lack of information about Vasiliev (not about the company) in them.
213.87.129.13 (
talk)
05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Albeit the author shouldn't matter in this, he's canvassed multiple admin's userpages in attempt to get this article deleted. Although my official argument is the general notability guideline. This meets that. Tutelary ( talk) 19:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ Tutelary: Please, explain, what do you see the correspondence of the article to the general notability guidence in? What sources given in the article are both reliable, independent and significantly cover the topic? VolgaCamper ( talk) 03:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that being online, Tutelary can not answer my question. She has no counter-arguments. Ignoring questions looks very strange.
Firstly, the sources 3, 4 and 6, 5, 7 have no any information about Sergei Vasiliev. Secondly, the article about his biography. The sources 8 and 9 have some information, but the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP). The sources 2 and 10 - independent of the subject. Thirdly, as noted earlier, only 1 has information about Sergei Vasiliev, but it's not enough.
Also, the sources 8 and 9 do not only contradict the rule, but WP:GNG, because according to this rule need enough description of his personality to extract encyclopedic information about him. And 9 source also unreliable. VolgaCamper ( talk) 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 01:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete A business man who owns a non-notable company and chairs a non-notable guild. He is in a legal battle with his non-notable business partner and is receipient of the Highest Public Award of the Russian Federation and the prestigious order badge from the Russian Orthodox Church. These are non-notable awards, as far as I can see. There is no article of him in the Russian language, and the article suffers from WP:O. An uncontroversial delete. Jeff5102 ( talk) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Article should be deleted because the article does not comply with WP:GNG, because sources do not have enough full description of the person, and the sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. ( WP:NTEMP) Also, in some sources there is no information at all. Only one source has some information, but it is not enough, it requires two or three reliable sources. It looks as though most of the article is an author's invention. VolgaCamper ( talk) 10:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have never received the answers to my arguments. The sources do not meet the requirements that are described in WP:GNG. Delete. 213.87.133.223 ( talk) 20:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.