Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrus Rõuk


 * 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   keep. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrus Rõuk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and expand: Hmm, according to this he's been in a bunch of art shows, etc. and had stuff in collections. He apparently also has a published book of poetry.  I don't know if they're notable though.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, while he definitely has been active person, I don't think that any information there is sufficient for qualifying by WP:CREATIVE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem sufficiently notable...Modernist (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - The "Expand by Language" template is on the article. If nobody here is willing to translate ask someone from the Estonian Wikipedia to do so. -- allen四names 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless somebody definitively says that foreign language sources have been evaluated and found lacking, this article should stay. We dont delete on suspicion, and there are many links to Estonian sources which to my untrained eye seem to RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't say "definitely" because I haven't read through those sources in Estonian Wikipedia that are not online, but generally 2nd, 3rd, 4th seem to be simple reviews of his poetry book. 5th talks shortly about subject's and Aivar Rumvolt's discussion evening about recently deceased Urmas Mikku. So not much notability in these. 1st and 6th seem to be talking about that how he was expelled from Estonian State Institute of Arts for his poem, but even if we consider it notable this would still go under WP:BLP1E. I would generally be very hesitant to use Estonian Wikipedia as argument for notability, because generally its inclusion standards seem lower than here(for understandable reasons), also I personally haven't found any equivalents of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:BLP there.--Staberinde (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Orderinchaos 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ignorance. Looming (journal) is the most notable publication in Estonia. Valid source. Notability undoubtable 87,000 google hits. Needs expansion. Starzynka (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can someone else please confirm Starzynka's claim about google hits? I personally get only 3,090, and if I add "-wikipedia" it falls to 1,520 . Also even if we consider event that is sourced with Looming notable it would still fall under WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Doesn't meet our BLP or notability standards. Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 13:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep but need to expand I don't think that just because an article has a foreign subject, it's not necessarily notable as others have pointed out. But, nevertheless, article is in need of considerable expansion. Anubis3 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: needs to be expanded, this man seems to be sufficiently notable (at least for me :P)  MisterWiki  talk  ( SIGN / REVIEW )  20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - there may not be lots of English sources, but that does not make him non-notable. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (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.