Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nestor Gayowsky


 * 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 discussion running for over a month, the most comprehensive arguments therein (mainly those of the nominator) support deletion. Kholodovsky had the chance to point to more reliable sources, but only came up with a single interview. Geschichte (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Nestor Gayowsky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a diplomat and unsuccessful candidate for political office, not making any strong claim to passing our notability standards for diplomats or politicians. To be fair, at the time this was created we accepted diplomats as "inherently" notable -- but that's long since been deprecated, and the notability test for diplomats now requires properly sourced evidence of their significance, not just technical verification of their existence. But this basically just documents that he exists, not that he had any significant or noteworthy accomplishments in the role -- and losing political candidates aren't notable just for being candidates either, so his candidacy doesn't contribute any extra notability points. This is also using a really weird, bad referencing format, which just places Name of Newspaper, Date in parentheses directly after the content, without actually providing the title of any specific article in that newspaper. So I ran a search in ProQuest, a database which includes every single newspaper being cited that way here, but I found that the sources fell into one of two camps: either I didn't find any content about Nestor Gayowsky in the specified newspaper on the specified date at all, or I did and it was just a glancing namecheck of Gayowsky's existence in an article whose primary subject was something else. So, again, this was a good faith creation at the time, but our notability standards have changed over the past 15 years and he just doesn't pass the current tests anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete diplomats are not default notable nor are defeated candidates for public office. The sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources — Kholodovsky (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What significant coverage in reliable sources? Significant coverage means he is the subject of the source, not just that his name gets mentioned in a source whose subject is something else, and I checked all of the sources named in the article and found nothing that crosses the bar into "significant coverage". Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * INTERVIEW: Nestor Gayowsky, Canada's consul-general for Kiev. — P. 8-9 ukrweekly.com —Kholodovsky (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Q&A interviews in which the person is talking about themselves in the first person aren't notability-making sources. The only kind of source that supports notability is one in which other people are independently analyzing the significance of his work in the third person, not any source in which he's doing the speaking. And the new sources you've added to the article aren't cutting it, either: his notability is also not supported by any content where he's the bylined author of the source, press releases from his own employers, YouTube videos, directory entries on the self-published websites of his own employers, content self-published to people's personal websites, or sources which briefly mention his name a single time in the process of not being about him. You have still shown exactly zero sources that actually make a difference here, because you have shown no sources that represent reliable source coverage about him and his work. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Bearcat is right, Q&A does not show notability, nor do any of the other sources presented here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I support the arguments of Kholodovsky.—ArhKarl (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kholodovsky didn't make any legitimate or policy-compliant arguments. He simply misrepresented unreliable sourcing as being worth more than it really is, and said absolutely nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Right now those advocating keep have not presented sources that establish notability. Relisting to see if such sources can be found or if there is a delete consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [babble] ||  16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bearcat is correct -- the article does not present any evidence that Gayowsky meets Wikipedia's standards for notability (and I haven't found anything else to suggest that he would). I'm still an inclusionist when it comes to borderline circumstances, but this isn't a borderline circumstance. A short reference on this page might be appropriate; a full biographical entry isn't. CJCurrie (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per CJCurrie's comments. 2001:569:74D2:A800:80D1:EDB9:E36A:4C11 (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2020 (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.