The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

no consensus at all Abs11a ( talk) 13:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• I'd have called that "no consensus" too. The "weak keep" !votes seem well-considered and source-based and they do a good job of explaining why that was a close call. The Guardian source is at once useful and problematic. A more difficult question is whether the "delete" close was within discretion. That looks arguable either way to me and I wouldn't say it's a slam dunk overturn for me. I wish the AfD had done more thinking about merge or redirect targets.— S Marshall  T/ C 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Note if consensus emerges to re-list, etc. no objection to my page protection being removed. It was solely to stop the editing of a closed AfD since it didn't appear clear to Abs11a that that wasn't the way to handle their objections to the close. Neutral on the appeal, I did not review the discussion/merits, was solely an early relister when there was no input Star Mississippi 14:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. No delete !vote was lodged after the last relist, which, if there had been a consensus to delete, the discussion would not have been relisted. Relisting was done too many times already for it to be viable again. The debate is certainly poor, but when you have a bunch of people arguing about notability rather than core policies like V with no clear voice, it's problematic to say that that constitutes a consensus for either keeping or deleting, but WP:DGFA make it clear "When in doubt, don't delete". Certainty of the closing admin exceeding the certainty of the discussion is clearly not what was intended here. Jclemens ( talk) 03:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Borderline. I'm not going to endorse this but it's not entirely wrong either. I would have draftified this. Four relists though, two of which were after no comments whatsoever? Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse and I may not be unbiased at this point, but this is a case where the appellant has provided more noise than signal, including by edit-warring a closed discussion, and has detracted from the case that they might have made. The closer has explained their close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• overturn to NC there was nothing that could be called a clear consensus for deletion there. And while the delete arguments are slightly stronger, a "weak keep" is perfectly reasonable. Hobit ( talk) 17:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, had I been closing this I would have ended up somewhere between "delete" and "no consensus" and probably defaulted to the latter. It's an edge case - it seems like there are reasonable arguments on either side but the deletes go into a tiny bit more details on why they find the sources inadequate. With that in mind, I see why it was relisted so many times. I'd say weak overturn to NC with an emphasis on "weak". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Vladislav Sviblov ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• During the discussion, no answers were given to the arguments against the removal
• References to sources were completely ignored. For example, such as Forbes
• Is the article about the owner of the largest gold mining company in Russia insignificant? Валерий Пасько ( talk) 15:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the right close to the discussion. This does not mean that the subject is not notable. The AFD was not primarily about notability. The AFD was primarily about the article being junk (which does mean that a new article can be submitted in draft for review, but this one has been deleted). The existence of reliable sources in an article does not mean that the article must be kept. The participants in the AFD probably decided that the coverage either was not significant or was not independent and secondary. So the close was valid. The submitter may submit a new draft for review, but that isn't what they are asking here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Валерий Пасько, it would be helpful if you would create a draft stub page and list WP:THREE sources. Maybe the sources were non-independent. Maybe the deletion should be read as WP:TNT. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Closer No other option for the close, but as the above two editors say, that does not mean it is non-notable. I did look at a few sources in translation and they mainly appeared to be about the company rather than the owner, but even if this had not been the case I could not have supervoted over the consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• As it happens, I've just been reading an academic study of the performance of translation algorithms from Russian to English (which is here if you're interested). Basically, machine translations are not reliable for this language pair, even though they're two Indo-European languages. We need humans who're fluent in Russian here.— S Marshall  T/ C 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  This has been an interest of mine. Western European languages, and Arabic, Persian and Chinese, google translate very well, but Russian involves a lot of expressions that can be erroneously interpreted as wordiness. Other examples, Japanese and Indonesian, google translate unreliably or poorly, for reasons that I think are best summarised as common mixing of different forms of their language. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, many articles in the Russian Wikipedia do not have sources on English-language sites at all. I noticed this when I translated and posted articles about Soviet military heroes Валерий Пасько ( talk) 18:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no other way to close it. Agree with SmokeyJoe--if you think you have the sources, list the best three or four here. If they are good enough, recreation is viable. But looking at the cached article, I'm not seeing much. Hobit ( talk) 17:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• I created a draft of the article. Here are three in my opinion extensive sources. If you have problems with the translation of incomprehensible expressions of the Russian language, feel free to contact me

extensive material on the activities of Sviblov with criticism [1]

about the purchase of a large gold deposit by Sviblov [2]

About Sviblov and his activities [3]

Валерий Пасько ( talk) 19:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

You wrote this draft: Draft:Vladislav Sviblov. It is a copy of the deleted article? Attribution problem.

You gave three sources, thank you. 1 looks good. 2 won't download for me. 3 looks good. In the draft, this, Financial Times, is classified at WP:RSPSS as a reliable source. It's behind a paywall. Could you quote an excerpt of independent commentary. Regardless, these sources have more merit than the source analysis at the AfD afforded them.

Overturn (relist) for an analysis of these proffered best sources. The AfD was inadequate in deleting on the basis of junk sources but not directly looking at the best source. Give User:Валерий Пасько more time to present these best sources and invite the other participants to comment on these sources. It would be helpful to remove the junk sources and any content based on junk sources. User:Валерий Пасько stated early in the AfD that he had removed stuff, but I suspect that this one simply escaped attention. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The cited publication in the Financial Times only mentions Sviblov and is used to confirm the information in the article. All English-language authoritative sources only mention Sviblov (several sentences about his activities). There is a wide application of his activities and biography in Russian-language authoritative sources. Three such sources I used above. Валерий Пасько ( talk) 19:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Is there a Russian language Wikipedia article for him? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

ru:Свиблов, Владислав Владимирович Валерий Пасько ( talk) 08:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I've had a good look. The new sources offered, and the state of the Russian language article, do not match the AfD nomination, or the two "Delete" !votes. It really deserves a better discussion of the best sources, as opposed to discussing the worst and removed parts. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, history merge the deleted article with the draft, and send the draft to AFC when it's ready. Stifle ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply