Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Trunov (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Igor Trunov
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:BIO. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete As I said last time, this is an overly promotional article. It might be possible to fix, but there is no sign of any real notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The deletion in Russian Wikipedia means nothing. They can delete a notable individual (which this one is) but leave a not notable milking lady who have either Hero of Socialist Labour or Order of Lenin, or both. Link.--Biografer (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and a member of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of the Republika Srpska already falls under WP:PROF #3.--Biografer (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt a person from actually having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the sources here are a user-generated discussion forum, which is not valid support for notability at all, and a magazine article in which he's the speaker and not the subject, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only media source in play. And furthermore, this is written far more like a résumé than like a proper encyclopedia article, and even politicians who cleanly pass NPOL right on its face still don't get to have an article that's written and formatted this way. If somebody can do better, writing it properly and showing much better evidence of reliable sourcing than this shows, then by all means bring it on — but this, as written and sourced, is not good enough. And finally, the notability bar is not passed simply by asserting it as a given that he's more notable than an unnamed "milking lady" — it's passed by showing some evidence that he passes our notability criteria, namely by finding and showing better notability-supporting sources. Furthermore, this represents no significant improvement over the version that was deleted in 2015, but rather was recreated as a straight copy-paste of the first version, meaning it really should have been speedied as a recreation of deleted content right away rather than surviving four more years. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you read the other statement that I wrote? In the second statement I said he meets WP:PROF #3 per this. The fact that the article is a mess, yes, heartily agree. But we don't delete articles here for being promotional or what not, we fix or trim them instead.--Biografer (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reliable source for the purposes of establishing his notability per WP:PROF either. Even that notability criterion is not automatically passed just because it's technically confirmable in a bad or unreliable source — it still has to be supported by a non-trivial kind and volume of reliable sourcing, such as analysis of his academic work in academic journals, before a person actually gets that pass. Bearcat (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2019 (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.