Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zaytsev (businessman)


 * 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 delete. I'll just quote one participant who I think really encapsulated the consensus here in a breath: there is not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a stand-alone article. And that's that. El_C 05:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Zaytsev (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The entity fails WP:GNG and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also, it fails WP:THREE as per WP:RS/WP:RSP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: I invite (the creator of the article) and  (the reviewer of the article) to participate in this discussion. Also, I would like apologize for putting this article first through WP:CSD... it's always better to have an opinion from the creator. As per my editing principles, I put my views once during the nomination and it covers majorly all my concerns. The floor is yours. - Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I’m failing to understand what is supposed to make the subject notable. —Kbabej (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the discussion below. You could compare Yury Chyzh. Do you note anything that makes him notable but not Zaytsev? If not, should Yury Chyzh be deleted as well? --Jabbi (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment In google search there are lot's of articles for "Alexander Zaitsev" who is CTO of company called RAISON. See this TechCrunch article. He is based in Moscow according to this. Do we know if this is the same person? If so, perhaps he could be notable for keep and if not then it's a delete for me. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not the same person – Thjarkur (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This all looks like WP:SIGCOV to me. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Not notable figure for a Wikipedia page. Self-advertisement/COI. Also, the article is not neutral, does not mention anything about corruption, and written vaguely "Zaitsev is said to have lived..."  Partizan Kuzya (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain in what way it is not neutral? What do you feel should be mentioned about corruption? You are correct that the sentence you quote is vaguely written, I wrote that because I felt I did not have good enough sources to make the statement without qualifying it. I suppose it can be changed to be more decisive. Jabbi (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Might I begin first of all by thanking Hatchens for starting this discussion by nominating it for deletion, it is important due diligence, selfless work, and asking those users that have already contributed to this debate, User:Kbabej, User:Expertwikiguy & User:Partizan Kuzya to read my argument below and reconsider their stance. Secondly, I would suggest that this entity requires some familiarization with Belarusian politics because, as I will argue, context specific information is necessary to understand why he is WP:GNG. Third, Belarus does not enjoy freedom of speech. In my view, this means that WP:SIGCOV should not be as stringent a requirement because, in addition to the above, most sources will be written in Russian or Belarusian (of which I speak neither). These two elements combine to raise the bar, there are fewer sources of information out there because of censorship and those sources are difficult to find and fully understand by non-Russian speakers. In that vein, I urge all editors reading this to consider the issue of systemic bias in the English Wikipedia.
 * Responding to WP:GNG: Zaitsev is number 10 in the "TOP 200 successful and influential businessmen of Belarus - 2019" according to the Belarusian business website Diary His rise on that list has been meteoric, nobody knows really where he's gotten his money from. Alexander, who is still a relatively young man, had an unremarkable career in public service up until the early 2000s, when it seems he went to the UAE before returning a rich man. Alexander has not made his fortune in IT unlike fellow countryman and businessman Victor Kislyi (of Wargaming computer game franchise, who fails WP:GNG) but in minerals according to his Diary profile . This is then made all the more conspicuous by the fact that before ending his career as a civil servant and leaving for UAE, Zaitsev was an aide to Viktor Lukashenko, the son of Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus since 1994, albeit illegitimately according to Western authorities, since the 2020 Belarusian presidential election. Here is a 2018 source from Belarus.by, the official website of the Belarus Republic, where the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, is not only giving his blessing for “Bremino-Orsha”, a special economic zone but actually ordering its progress to be expedited. Who is the chairman of the group behind the project but Alexander Zaitsev. One might ask how it comes to be that a public server and aide of the presidential son, with no known business interests a decade earlier, is all of the sudden one of Belarus' top influential businessmen, clearly supported strongly by the Lukashenko family (and there are unsubstantiated rumors). In other news, Zaitsev has been busy with his pet football project, a la Abramovich but on a smaller scale, he flew Diego Maradona in to have him sign up as chairman to FC Dinamo Brest. Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to [his affiliation] with the Lukashenko regime."
 * Responding to WP:SIGCOV: I have already made the arguments above but with summarize them here again. This is a non-English and even a non-Roman alphabet entity which brings challenges for English Wikipedia consumption. There should be a less stringent requirement for the above reasons. Nonetheless, I feel there are sufficient sources gathered in the article itself and in the above discussion both by myself and User:Thjarkur.
 * Responding to WP:THREE: 1 Belarus president wants industrial, logistics hub in Orsha District sooner, Belarus.by, the official website of the Belarus Republic, 11 Jul 2018 2 Alexander Zaitsev, Diary TOP 200 successful and influential businessmen of Belarus - 2019. 3 Businessman Zaitsev left the football club Dynamo Brest, which became a state, Tut.by, January 13, 2021
 * Responding to WP:RS/WP:RSP: The fact that Belarusian web sources do not appear on the list of debated reliable sources is not surprising in the least, it would in fact be surprising if they did. The Belarusian sources cited are among the most popular Belarusian news and information sites. Is there any specific reason they should not be consider as valid per WP:RS#News organizations.
 * Finally, I encourage you to think critically about in what ways Yury Chyzh or Vladimir Peftiev meet your requirements but Zaytsev does not. Thank you, --Jabbi (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I am suspecting WP:COI here. I checked the articles with Google translate. A lot of the content are not supported by these articles. to Jabbi : for example: How would you know that "Alexander was born in Ruzhany in Brest Region in 1976?" none of these articles have such info. In addition, only 5 news from foreign publications that do not look credible is not enough to meet WP:GNG. If you are connected contributor, you must also declare this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is verified in the cited source, but you have to click on the plus icon to see it : "Alexander Zaitsev was born in 1976 in Ruzhany." I don't see any signs of a COI. I also don't see any signs of these being unreliable sources, we have an article on Tut.By. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not have WP:COI here. Can you point to any other content that you think is not supported by these articles? How can you say that the foreign publications do not look credible? Please consult WP:RS#News organizations before making such a claim or support your statement with arguments. Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Once again, besides COI and lack of notability, the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption here. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I take exception to your unsubstantiated accusation of COI. You do not answer specific questions about why it is not neutral. You then go on to provide a blog as a source for your claim of corruption. I am finding it hard to take your contributions here seriously. --Jabbi (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

→Tribuna.com is not a blog, but online media with up to 200 employees. One more soure about corruption from Belsat TV. Here is another source about corruption from AFN.by. Please read the sources that explain corruption. COI is highly plausible as none of the information about corruption is mentioned in the article. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Partizan Kuzya: I am still not certain about how reliable your sources are but I would be happy to include a sentence about alleged involvement in corrupt business practices citing them. I assume this assuages your concern about COI. Do you then still maintain that the article still is not notable ? Could I ask you to compare with Yury Chyzh and tell me what is the difference? --Jabbi (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have explained my reasoning in detail above. I request contributing editors substantiate claims they wish to make about any issues they might have with the article. To give more context on my reason for creating the article (and I am perhaps a bit inspired by Navalny's recent documentary), Zaytsev seems like a suspicious businessman involved with the Lukeshenko family. I would not be strongly against deleting it. In the event I would merge information here into the Viktor Lukashenko article. I do think though that if a deletion is carried through, the same editors in favour of that should take up the same discussion for the article Yury Chyzh, because I see the two articles as entirely compatible. --Jabbi (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

, do you want to weigh in here? I don't want this to go stale. Since you are following up with an AFD here I would expect you to apply the same to Yury Chyzh or failing that, explain the difference between these articles. --Jabbi (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: He seems plainly notable to me based on coverage I can find, notwithstanding the backdrop of censorship and corruption in Belarus. Tut.By, a leading news site in Belarus, published a decent piece of Zaytsev in 2018. (Title, "“Friendship with Rumas”. The businessman who brought Maradona to Brest").  And This article in By.Tribuna.com is also significant coverage of Zaytsev; (RSF (Reporters Without Borders) relays that this is a very popular Belarusian sports news website that sometimes crosses into political territory.)  The Russian wikipedia has had an article on him since November 2019 with no apparent questioning of his notability (for whatever that is worth).  I find it somewhat amusing that this apparently powerful person in Belarus likely would have no article if he hadn't bought the football team he rooted for as a child.  In the 2018 article, he says "I have not been and do not intend to become a public person."  Well, don't buy a football team, the sport that spawned WAGs for merely being around the sport.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this article should not be deleted. who has twice nominated it for deletion has not responded or participated in the debate despite me having courteously asked him to participate in what he started. He seems to be very selectively active. Other users have mainly mentioned WP:COI which is rather plainly not the case IMO (there is a Russian page with more critical information, the English version I created is not based on it, I did not know about it). Charges of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV seem therefore wide of the mark (perhaps the reason Hatchens is busy with other random stuff). --Jabbi (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting after inappropriate non administrator closure
 * Dear, kindly read my comment which I posted along with this AfD nomination. The reasons given by me at the time of nomination is more than enough to justify my view on an entity and then I always prefer the group to take the call. If there is a general consensus to keep this page, then I'm fine with it. But, I guess ... consensus has not been achieved at all. More than that, each Wikipedia has its own standards, and the acceptance of an article's topic or of any part of its content in one language is no guarantee that it will be accepted in another. For more details, click here. Secondly, what I have also noticed that you are comparing this entity with other entities and asking why they should be also kept live (in AfD discussion). This is not good reasoning... at all. - Hatchens (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you need any assistance then kindly ping some subject matter experts such as seasoned editors or admins. If you want me to do that... I would love to oblige. - Hatchens (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pings: Dear . Your unbiased assessment is required to close this Afd. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding and pinging the editors that are collaborating. Nominating a page twice for deletion and not participating in the debate about its deletion is sloppy. I suggest you limit your activities to finishing what you start. It is impolite, although I appreciate how consistently polite and civil your tone is. You will note that after repeated prodding and your pinging now a consensus is being reached about deleting it. This would not have happened had I not prodded you, it is there fore not me who needed assistance but you in concluding what you started. I know very well that requirements and norms between Wikipedias is different, I am a veteran of my native Icelandic Wikipedia. Finally, comparing articles is very good reasoning, the standard for articles to be allowed to exist has to be consistent of course, if you can not explain why A is ok but B is not then your argument is arbitrary and weak. Good luck with your further work and if you need any assistance, kindly reach out. --Jabbi (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is not that neutral (being little bit of promotional tinge), I believe that being an owner of a notable association football team is enough to get this thing kept.  Mario Jump  83!  11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am recusing myself from participating in this AfD moving forward and I am also striking my !vote in here.  Mario Jump  83!  13:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I can be convinced otherwise (ping me with your rationale, please), and it will not take much to move me to deletion. Delete. I have reconsidered and am persuaded that he is, after all, on the wrong side of the border of notability.  I have spent some time in the rather small article and analysed/machine translated its sources, removing one from two areas it did not verify, and called for more sources. I have fond the gentleman to be just sufficiently notable to cross the threshold into notability. He has a certain notoriety, too, in the manner that Russian (etc) businessmen who appear suddenly on the scene do.I find the article itself to be of poor quality and lacking in useful sources.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * delete this is nothing more than PR spam about a run of the mill business person who lacks serious independent coverage. CUPIDICAE💕  13:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject is a non notable businessman.This is written for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 Discuss 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not able to note even a borderline notability. Fails GNG and relevant SNG criteria. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  14:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the RS coverage presented by other !voters. The article is not really promotional in its current state, and the addition of his corruption would certainly balance it out. Mottezen (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Although the sources are reliable, that's just one part of the criteria. Another vital part is that the references must contain Independent Content as described in WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a stand-alone article. References posted above are largely interviews and routine coverage which do not establish notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The source you provided isn't rs coverage but I think you need to read this. Wikipedia doesn't exist, especially in the context of articles on living people to serve as a takedown of authoritarian or corrupt government. We simply need in depth, independent coverage. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist and we cannot make special exceptions to that. BLP is a hardline policy and applies to this discussion as much as it does in the article, so please review those policies before commenting with unsourced speculation about a living persons dealings. CUPIDICAE💕  14:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of those policies. They nonetheless have a flipside which I think reinforces systemic bias here. Authoritarian regimes limit free media and coverage, which shrouds power in secrecy. There are no allegations in the draft article for a reason, it only contains verifiable facts which has given rise to WP:GNG but also accusation of WP:COI because it's found to not be critical enough. A more in-depth comment by me was removed here where I discuss the possibility (supported by the Lithuanian newspaper source) that Zaytsev might be a wallet ( seems to think this is an allegation of criminality). --Jabbi (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was an allegation and was a BLP violation. That's why I pointed it out. Please read WP:RGW. Combatting bias on Wikipedia does not mean ignoring core tenets. CUPIDICAE💕  15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this. The discussion about whether a political figure is a wallet in these regimes is hardly a BLP violation as it is not an accusation of breaking any laws. I am not proposing breaking core tenets, but intepreting them in context. --Jabbi (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Speculation about criminal acts are still blp violations unless there are multiple RS reporting on it - in both of the sources you supplied in your revision deleted comment, neither mentioned the subject and even if they had, they don't even discuss what you're saying and the one from Charter97 isn't RS for such a claim in a BLP. I strongly advise you rethink your comments and strategy here because you're still inserting BLP violations after you were warned. CUPIDICAE💕  15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Belarus does not have strong private property laws. Being a wallet in such a country just means you have the favour of the politician. There is no implication of wrongdoing, only lawful collusion seen as corruption in Western countries. --Jabbi (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Legality is irrelevant. Insinuating wrongdoing, which you are, repeatedly and without adequate reliable sourcing is still a BLP violation. Stop. I don't know if something is lost in translation but there is no definition in which corruption doesn't imply wrongdoing. CUPIDICAE💕  15:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You should re-read what I wrote "seen as corruption in Western countries". This is a problem of WP:Systemic bias in a nutshell. You want to apply Western values to Belarusian facts. --Jabbi (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is negative, unsourced BLP violating information. Corruption, by definition, is negative regardless of where in the world it is. Implying someone is corrupt, unsourced in a discussion or in an article violates Wikipedia's policies, drop the stick. CUPIDICAE💕  15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay --Jabbi (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement from original creator of article: I am content that there is consensus for deletion. I ask I be given a grace period to salvage information here which I will move unto Viktor Lukashenko. Thanks to everyone for particiaping. --Jabbi (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (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.