Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kornievsky


 * 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. The nomination statement is very brief, citing only a policy, and several of the votes here (on either side) have similarly brief. However, from what I gather, the main complaint on the delete side is that the subject is notable only for an event that amounts to a news story. The keep side however has pointed out that the subject seems to have some coverage in a book as well. Each side has about even support, and since there are some sources listed there is no policy that mandates deletion here either. That will usually, as here, default to a no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

John Kornievsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This news item, from the time of his forced return to the Soviet Union, goes some distance toward establishing notability and more or less confirms several of the facts in the article. However, we clearly need more than one reliable source. I am currently unable to trace the one Russian reference given in the article, though if it turns out to be both substantial and reliable, I think there would be weak but sufficient grounds for keeping the article. Otherwise, it would probably be a matter of (probably offline) sources from his period in the West (and with the added difficulty that transcriptions of Russian names in the 1950s and 1960s were less standardised than today) or from more recent Russian or Ukrainian sources. PWilkinson (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It looks to me as if his kidnapping by USSR was a notable incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But WP:NOTNEWS? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing another Wikipedia policy if the "Non-notable per WP:BIO" rationale you attach to your frequent drive-by deletion tagging of biographies is sufficient? If it isn't "drive-by" then why the same boilerplate rationale and the failure to give me the courtesy of a reply when I have elsewhere objected?  I suggest all of this nominator's deletion reviews be closed as default Keep unless and until the nominator starts quoting specific elements of WP:BIO or some other Wikipedia policy and explaining how they apply to the nominated article.  Deletion nominators should be willing to put the same sort of effort into explaining why the contributions of others should be deleted that they demand of those others by initiating a deletion debate.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I am citing another policy because it may be relevant and it is a reply to a new comment. Also, I see no reason to quote specific parts of WP:BIO because it is all relevant. And AfDs are not just about spouting policy or guidelines - it is about establishing consensus about individual articles. As for replying to your objections elsewhere I am afraid I am completely unaware of the discussion, or did not know how to reply, or maybe did not want to reply. Please let me know where this objection is posted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah. I found a comment on your talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If "it is all relevant" isn't a cop out to dodge accountability for your tagging then how are you to be challenged on your interpretation of WP:BIO (or any other policy)? If you are interested in enabling the community to come to a consensus about whether your interpretation is correct then you would state just what it is that you are interpreting instead of giving the impression that you believe the rest of us ignorant of WP:BIO's existence.  Respecting the reality of a dispute means acknowledging the expected disagreement of a veteran editor like myself instead of just advising me on my talk page that you wish to delete with a boilerplate reference to WP:BIO.  I specifically responded to you regarding the applicability of WP:BIO on that article's deletion review page and the fact that you are "completely unaware" of the existence of a page you created (instead looking to my talk page) suggests that you are indeed more interested in obligating the editing community to respond to your deletion nominations than in advancing the reviews you initiate in a consensus building way.  If "it is about establishing consensus about individual articles" then you would acknowledge that the starting point for any article is a consensus to keep given that it was created by at least one other editor in the first place.  If you think the consensus is otherwise you should be able to produce some specific, contrary evidence.  All this to say that the alternative to drive-by deletion reviews is to "clearly and concisely identify problems with Wikipedia pages to allow other editors to fix them."  If it can't be fixed, fine, but that would mean actually doing some investigating yourself into whether a fix is available or not before concluding that there isn't.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not necessarily trust the standards of the ruWP in all fields to match ours, but I do accept them as likely to be better informed than we can do, with respect to Russian historical figures, including the Soviet period.  DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails notability guidlines. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any events or achievements in the article that would make him notable. If his abduction is a notable event and not just a news item, that may be an argument] for having an article on same, and not a biography.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 04:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per  Ohconfucius  and Sue Rangell. Not notable. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not? --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If I google his name, all I get are wikipedia links. NickCT (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to say that I also do not think Better Badges should be deleted. It is a very notable institution and the page is very interesting. It should even be enhanced with photos of products. It should not matter if Joly MacFie is the founder of the business and also the only editor, as he is the one who would know the most about the institution. For these reasons I urge that it not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCrulees (talk • contribs) 23:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tentative Keep, I get a hit in a book entitled "The Oxford Handbook of Free Will: Second Edition" but lack the resources to follow it up -- No unique  names  08:05, 13 January 2013 (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.