Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naum Koen


 * 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. The "keep" side does not actually name and discuss the reliability of the sources that supposedly confer notability. , who is not an admin, should not have relisted this discussion. Please do not manage AfD discussions until you have considerably more experience.  Sandstein  07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Naum Koen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The personal coverage here consists of one puff interview one promo item taken straight from Facebook, and one promo piece that is positively cloying in its obsequiousness. Everything else is passing mentions or, more frequently, no personal mention at all, within coverage of the company (and three of these are in-house press releases press releases). I don't see WP:NBIO fulfilled here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Add: Shemtovca has unearthed several more sources that do shore up notability somewhat. Still rather on the promo-interview and/or passing mention side for my taste, but IMO a better case could be made now. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: I accepted this draft submission because i found that it does rise to the level of notability and WP:NBIO. The second source you mentioned is from an online publication that is a valid source for Ukrainian news. Here is an article covering his visit to Azerbaijan in the local news media. Here is an article in Arabic news. There is many more i found in my Google news search. The many articles that talk about the his company almost in every case mention him personally because the company is how he conducts his business. Shemtovca (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The correct link for the Arabic new : published by Arabian_BusinessCharmk (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also as per WP:BEFORE C2 & C3 its preferable to add a tag for example instead of starting an AFD, specially in a case of an article that was recently created. Shemtovca (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. They're a few articles on the subject but its just not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Defintely WP:TOOSOON . Lapablo (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as it easily passes GNG. Some of the refs are articles or interviews dealing specifically with this person. Promotional tone and grammar issues do need to be addressed. Hydromania (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (but rewrite relying less heavily on promo sources): taking Shemtovca's characterization of the added sources in good faith, meets GNG. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 02:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither he nor his business is really notable, at least based on the current sources, and the article was and is still quite promotional. ("multiple companies in different industries") with some rather absurd   name dropping, such a meeting a distinguished person after a conference., The interviews are totally unusable for notability as they are the sort that allow the interviewee to say whatever they please--you do not need to read Russian to tell that's the case with  https://natali.ua/life-style/67757/  and http://dengi.ua/business/307134-Luchshe-ne-budet-nigde--chem-v-rodnoj-strane---no-snachala-LUChShE-nado-sdelat--absoljutno-vse (deliberately not linked) . The identical titles of some of the other references show their origins as press releases.
 * As for the added sources, the Arabic publication mentioned above says on its face,in English, that it's a press release. The second source, mentioned above [4], may be from a reputable publication, but the article itself is a press release; ""  [4] "The NY Koen Group holding, under the leadership of the founder and the world-famous Ukrainian businessman NY Koen Group, ... seeks to introduce all the latest and most progressive management methods, combining them with the classical management fundamentals that ensure stability and reliable investment. ...

Thanks to the success of its subsidiaries, NY Koen Group has a well-deserved recognition and trust of customers and partners...One of the partners of the NY Group -... - is the Indian holding company Sobha Group, ... and is known for its grandiose projects and impeccable quality of work. the whole world. Sobha Group offers consumers excellent results on time, which exceeds all expectations. The best specialists are involved in the implementation of projects, in the process of construction strict engineering control is carried out, great attention is paid to environmental protection, water resources and the highest safety." I apologize for the length of the quote. We shouldn't need to take the content of non-English references on faith.  DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * response to points raised by User:DGG:
 * I totally agree that the page is promotional in tone, and some parts require rewriting. However the tone of the article is not the reason for the AFD, WP:GNG is, and the WP:GNG is clearly met, the WP:GNG states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. - multiple sources meet this criteria.
 * According to Interviews - "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." - so unless you are questioning the integrity and independence of all these reporters. Having all these interviews does add to notability. 
 * totally Agree regarding Kutchma, and have deleted it.
 * I am not sure what you mean by (deliberately not linked). Some citations were added by the original contributor, others were added by me after this AFD was opened as mentioned above, but i just double checked, and this interview is cited! So i have no idea what is your issue here.
 * You are claiming that the: The second source, mentioned above [4], may be from a reputable publication, but the article itself is a press release - you decided that it's a press release how? if it's a reputable publication wouldn't they disclose that this is a press release? Is the reason because this article can be found also on other websites? Most of their articles are cross-syndicated to other sites.
 * - Shemtovca (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most generally, the combination of borderline or even weak notability with clear promotionalism, is an excellent reason for deletion at AfD, and each year, thousands of articles are so deleted. If there's something clearly notable, and not too outrageously promotional, it's worth rewriting or draftifying; if it's hopelessly non-notable, or really outrageously promotional, it's appropriate for speedy. If there's something borderline on both, it's not worth the work it would take tomake it acceptable. AfD, which can delete on any good reason that has consensus, is the place to make those judgments.
 * Having all those interviews, means he has an effective press agent. Having real interviews with reporters who don't simply reprint what he says, that is what leads to notability. An interview clearly arranged by the pressagent and used by the subject for publicity, is not an independent interview, no matter what news source is  misguided enough to publish it. The way to tell if is a PR-pseudo-interview, is to look at the contents, and we are qualified to judge that.  The way I tell is to look at the very short questions, which are lead-ins, followed by the the very extensive answers--and then if it is a language I can read or get a decent translation for, I look at what is said in the answers. And yes, I do indeed question the judgement of any reporter would would lend his name to such stuff. The amount of pseudo-journalism in the world is enormous, and some subject areas are especially notorious for it. We can't raise their standards, at least not directly, but we can keep it off WP. It is not possible to write decent articles, when all the sources are unreliable.
 * by "deliberately not linked", I mean I consider those sources of so abysmally low quality that I do not want to put the links into WP. I just put them in in plaintext so people would know what I am referring to. I see they got linked anyway. Next time, I'll know to use an unlinkable format.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Having all those interviews, means he has an effective press agent. Having real interviews with reporters who don't simply reprint what he says, that can lead to notability

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - WP:BASIC The coverage of the subject is all trivial. The majority of the references are really brief PR interviews or press releases for a business project. Where is the 10000 word article on him? Notability requires in-depth coverage. In many, his name is mentioned in passing. Not a single referenced article possesses depth. Many trivial mentions do not constitute notability. They are all basically… 'This is what the project is.' WP:WHYN This is reflected by the lack of depth in this article, which is essentially, 'He runs the company that has these lines of business and is working on this project.' That isn't a biography. ogenstein (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I’m just not seeing where the notability is. Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Add: Since this conversation has been going on for three weeks just wanted to update that few more links have been added and the article has been streamlined and duplicate info has been merged. Shemtovca (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and promotional. One of the first things I look at with a supposed biography, particularly a WP:BLP, is if the article is about the person. In many cases the article is presented as a pseudo biography with more on the company. If the company is notable that should be the article. Sometimes it seems it is all about money. When money is involved we naturally get PR reps and PR companies that get paid to do their job. If a person is a billionaire there will be a list (a lot of the times by Forbes) and that seems to be an indication some think we "must" have an article. We have categories for the lists of billionaires in various countries. Lists that don't have blue links will be red linked for a future article. See: List of Southeast Asian people by net worth, List of Germans by net worth, and others. Many times the lists themselves are not notable being sourced by just Forbes like List of Indonesians by net worth. Some are worse (Theo Müller) than others but when the sources are promotional that is what we end up with. A problem with Interviews is that they are RARELY actually neutral and are most of the times biased and leans towards promotion. This leads to less consideration of reliability in general and almost always in particular is proven as fact that they are less reliable. There seems to be a continued misunderstanding about sources. A source can be excellent for article content but not advance notability. Our guidelines separate the two but many times we seem to fail to grasp this. A company source with just the name of an individual, owner, or CEO, is not about that person and may have just passing mention on the individual. Being ultra rich is not a good single criterion for having an article from an encyclopedic point of view but from a monetary, self-worth, or pinnacle of stature point of view, it makes sense. If I had 3 BILLION dollars (estimated 2,153 billionaires in the world) I would probably want a Wikipedia article also. I would likely have a PR team that would work to make this happen even if I didn't toss 50 grand or more at one in attempts to make sure it happens. The point is that the person may not actually be as notable as the multi-billion dollar companies they run so why not start with the company? In this case look at what sources are available. Without considering the reliability or specific criteria on advancing notability, the sources are mainly about the company or companies over the individual. Otr500 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per and others. While the sourcing has improved since the original nomination, the fact remains that most of the coverage doesn't meet RS. (In that it is mainly reprints of interviews/press-releases/etc, and hence represent questionable/promotional sources. And also seems to be about the subject's company, rather than about the subject directly.) While an argument could be made that contributors to this EN project might be better swayed by RS coverage in English, it would seem reasonable that, if the subject is well-known to UK and RU speakers, then perhaps we'd (organically) have expected to see an article about the subject on the UK and RU WP projects first. Which brings me to my final point. Namely that the PAID/PROMO overtones here are concerning. And while the more glaring promo issues are largely addressed, the promotional undertones remain. (And, frankly, if they are removed, I'm not sure what is left.) In short, delete as NN (with a side order or NOTPROMO). Guliolopez (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * response to points raised by &
 * Regarding the interviews: the point has been addressed above. Plus multiple reliable, independent non-interview sources have been added. So at this point i believe there is enough non questionable/promotional sources thats would pass WP:RS
 * Regarding starting with a company page first: i wasn't the one who started this page so i can't answer for someone else's intent and priorities. But IMHO when a company is a private corporation, that belongs to a single individual and almost every article about the company mentioned the owner and in many instances talks as much about him as about the company, in such a case i believe the corporation is just a trade-name under which the individual does his business activities, and the individual is more notable than the company.
 * Regarding why there is no article in Russian / Ukrainian Wikipedia: While i speak fluently in Russian, i never did any major work in the Russian Wikipedia project space so i can't answer why it doesn't exist there but one thing to note is that English WP has close to 6 million articles, Russian WP has 1.5 million and Ukrainian has less than 1 million articles. So i am not surprised it doesn't exist there, since over the years i have found many articles regarding Russia / Ukraine will either not a have a Russian equivalent or it's going to be of much lower quality.
 * As you and others have acknowledged majority of the promotional content has been removed, and the article sourcing has improved. In which case i am not sure what you are suggesting with your last comment that "the promotional undertones remain. (And, frankly, if they are removed, I'm not sure what is left.)". If this type of logic would be applied we basically be saying that unless a successful individual has done something bad like committing some sort of major crime we shouldn't create a WP page for them since even though their success and philanthropy is covered the article looks too positive and has "promotional undertones".
 * Shemtovca (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: The first reference is an interview and the title translates to Naum Cohen. I dreamed of becoming a big man. When I read about the "NY Group Trade Center Kyiv" I would prefer it be from an independent source where it might be expected to see a pro and con aspect. There WILL BE NOTHING from the subject giving any negative sides. The second references titled "Dubai opens its heart to you" (translated) starts out "NY Group, under the leadership of the founder and world-famous Ukrainian businessman Koen Naum Yakubovich..." and the title and wording doesn't appear to me to have any chance at being neutral. The third reference also translated is titled "We want everything that we do to go beyond the ordinary and never cease to amaze" and is also an interview and is obviously not neutral. The fourth reference is also an interview titled "It will not be better anywhere else than in your own country, but first you have to do absolutely everything BETTER" (also translated), and again one need only read the interview to see an obvious lack of neutrality. The fifth reference title translates as "Jewelry House Jeni Coin makes your dreams come true". This reference is advertising and can be reflected by the end of the article, "And the most important thing is that for her every client is already a star, which with Jeni Coin can shine brighter!". Several references are press releases and those are not reliable as they are almost always initiated by the company or a PR team. I didn't comment of the amber mosque reference because references can be acceptable for content but not advance notability. What I see is still a lack of notability as provided by sources. Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also reply.
 * The suggestion that I am arguing that "successful philanthropists are only notable if they are also criminals" is one of the most glorious strawman that I have ever seen :) Normally I just quietly salute strawmen from the roadside. And move along. Without engaging them. But this example is so glorious that I have to acknowledge it :) Hurrah and three cheers to the most fantastic strawman I have seen in many a winter - Hurrah!
 * Massive dose of sarcasm aside, I am (OBVIOUSLY) not arguing that "unless a successful individual has committed a major crime we shouldn't create a WP page for them". No reasonable person would. Despite how my contributions seem to have been characterised. That being said, if I take this strawman down from his pole, and knock him about a bit, he also seems to suggest something about notability also potentially deriving from "success and philanthropy". Which, of course, it can. But, in the case of philanthropy for example, we might expect to see some sort of recognition or significant coverage of that philanthropy. Like an award maybe. Internationally the Balzan and Nobel prizes spring to mind. Even nationally, Ukraine has at least three orders of merit that recognise citizens for humanitarian and charity work. Has our subject received any of those? Not that I can see. Has our subject's philanthropy received a lot of coverage? Not that I can see. (A handful of quasi-promotional articles all covering the same recent charitable act would seem to confirm the subject's philanthropy, but do not confirm the subject's notability.)
 * Anyway, I'm sticking this glorious strawman back on his pole. He's too fantastic not to let others enjoy him too. ("You are basically saying that a successful individual must have done something bad in order to warrant a WP page". That's just brilliant. Best ever!) Thanks for the LOLs :) Guliolopez (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to : Alternative sources for Trade Center Kyiv News:
 * https://retailers.ua/news/partneryi/8777-v-smi-poyavilas-informatsiya-o-nachale-stroitelstva-pod-kievom-torgovo-vyistovochnogo-tsentra-ne-stroitsya---developer-razrabatyivaet-proekt (this one actually mentioned two negative things 1) the construction didn't start yet 2) The financing is not finalized yet.)
 * https://znaj.ua/capital/177834-pid-kiyevom-pobuduyut-odin-z-naybilshih-trc-v-yevropi-de-i-koli (the source discusses other unrelated projects and does mention some of them in negative light as well so clearly not a press release)
 * https://kp.ua/life/639506-ukrayntsam-besplatno-predostaviat-100-tysiach-vaktsyn-ot-kory for example clearly shows notability
 * Reply to : I am happy you find it funny and amusing, but some time the best way to prove a point is to take it to extreme AKA Reductio ad absurdum.
 * Regarding your point of where is his award?: Ukraine is now in a situation of Civil War and a war with one of the super powers (Russia). Ukraine has one of the most corrupt systems in the world built up and reinforced over the last 28 years. Under the previous president (the new one just got elected and is trying to win a parliamentary support now in upcoming parliamentary elections) only Anti-Russia pro war actions could have merited someone an award or recognition of some sort. Naum's donation embarrasses the political establishment incapable to deliver basic medical needs, hence awards are out of question. Shemtovca (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that if there isn't 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' then wikipedia doesn't treat a subject as notable (WP:GNG). WP isn't an advocacy site (WP:ADVOCACY) especially for the purpose of promoting a person and his business. WP should not engage in original research (WP:NOR). This page is a mess in that there is no independent coverage and there's confusion over the person versus the company (WP:ORGIND). This whole discussion of them being one and the same is just attempting to confuse the situation further. Some of the 'supporting' documents are essentially press releases for the company (WP:NOTADVERTISING). All of these interviews are primary sources which do not display subject notability (WP:BASIC). The complete absence of any neutral perspective means that all that remains is the fawning descriptions from these 'interviews' (WP:SPIP). It is just a soapbox for the subject (WP:SOAPBOX). WP:WPBIO requires that for a biography, the subject must have 'received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' None of that exists today and no amount of tweaking will change that. Unfortunately, there are numerous reasons that the subject should not have a standalone page. ogenstein (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * According to WP:WHYN "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." While you might disagree regarding some of the older articles kp.ua article definitely WP:SECONDARY, not an interview or a press release so no WP:NOR is required.
 * WP:ADVOCACY is defined as "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." Are you saying that the reason i support this article is because we are both from Ukraine? If not i fail to see how WP:ADVOCACY applies here.
 * Another WP:SECONDARY source that you have ignored is retailers.ua (it actually mentioned two negative things 1) the construction didn't start yet 2) The financing is not finalized yet.)
 * Including these above mentioned sources also negates WP:SPIP & WP:ORGIND
 * Also please note i have found older news coverage about him keeping a lion at his home near Kiev and added it under a new section.
 * Shemtovca (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I misinterpreted your comments at 01:20, then my apologies.
 * I looked at the KP article and it has the same issues. While it is true that the paper did not interview him directly, it instead spoke with his partners who laud him for his qualities, and then what may as well be a press release follows. This is not significant coverage, it is not independent, it is not a secondary source; guidelines are clear on this. The Retailers piece looks independent but most of the article consists of material given to the press or primary reporting but regardless of that, the article is about the project, not the subject. It is also routine business news — essentially anything that is along the lines of, 'financing completed' or 'workers broke ground'. And if an article can be described as 'mentions' then it doesn't contribute to notability.
 * After reviewing the additional material that you have found, I still do not see that any of WHYN, SPIP, or ORGIND have been addressed.
 * I think this gets confused a lot but: "A WP:SECONDARY source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." As long as the interviews with the subject follow the existing model, there is nothing for a secondary source to analyse or evaluate — hence there is an absence of significant secondary coverage. I should add that these sources have issues with WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as well. ogenstein (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The only reason i brought up the conflict in Ukraine was to paint the context of why expecting an award for offering measles vaccine to a country in Europe with highest measles incidents count is not a reasonable expectation in the current political climate.
 * Regarding judging if KP is a secondary / independent source you are saying that "guidelines are clear on this". WP:SECONDARY states "They rely on primary sources for their material". That is definition of secondary sources. Also the article clearly "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
 * Regarding the Retailers article: The primary sources are not trusted because they are not verified if a secondary source reprints them, without preface that this info wasn't verified we can trust them at this point. Furthermore the fact that they fact-checked the news as reported by other sources that the construction has begun, and reported otherwise, shows that they do the research required for reporting. And the story differently doesn't just "mention" the subject and his business. Shemtovca (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Then I misinterpreted your earlier comment and was mistaken in bringing up advocacy. Separately, I quoted 'mentions' because you described some of the sources this way and such a reference is by definition, trivial.
 * The KP article is simply printing the information provided by the partners of the subject and is promotional. It offers none of the requirements of SECONDARY and fails NOTNEWSPAPER. This applies to the majority of these sources but to clarify: Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability.
 * Whether construction has begun or not is routine business news and would not be indicative of a company's notability and is especially irrelevant when it comes to a BLP. It also fails NOTNEWSPAPER.
 * Despite considerable effort on your part to seek out a wide range of sources, the meaningful part of the biography could be written with a single sentence. There has not been 'analysis, evaluation, etc…' and this is clear from what can be written about the subject. Without good secondary sources it is not possible to write a full biography nor a balanced one, and that is really what the policies and guidelines try to provide for. ogenstein (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. What this article need is a notice for more reliable citations as the person is notable by the Wikipedia notability guidelines but in my opinion the selection of references is not good and the text of the article must be improved(instead of deletion).I propose to improve the article by leaving a few notices on top of it. I found more relevant information regarding the businessman on the Internet and his company as it is quite active in the post Soviet Union area. The mere fact that most of the links are in Russian don't make the person less notable.I'll be looking for more reliable sources to demonstrate it. RossK 19:17, 20 June 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.