Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Tulaev (3rd 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pavel Tulaev
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable Russian white supremacist. Zero significant coverage in independent sources. Let numerous references not fool you. NOthing imrpved since previous nominations. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. The first nomination was falsely closed as no-consensus by a non-admin. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "falsely"; both previous closes don't look very controversial. But they were both closed as no-consensus by non-admins after repeated re-lists with very few comments. I suggest we not do that again this time: let's please keep it open until enough comments have registered to make consensus or its lack more clear (regardless of whether it takes more than two re-lists) and to avoid the appearance of impropriety let's make sure the close is by an actual admin this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - I have fixed the title of this nomination and have repaired links from the article and AFD log. "(2 nomination)" now redirects here. Stalwart 111  00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. There's no independent reliable sources that make out the subject's notability. The keep votes in previous nominations never addressed that point but only made assertions.  I hope the closing admin notes that.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I had nominated this before, there are simply not enough sources to show notability or sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources do not meet WP:RS and WP:BLP. Specifically, of the sources in this version, sources 1, 4, 6, and 15 appear to be biased sources (split between white supremacist and anti-racist sources), 2 and 7 do not appear reliable, 3 is the subject's own site, 5, 9, and 10 appear to be reliably published but mention the subject only trivially, 8 is one of his publishers' web site and has only a trivial mention, and 11-14 and 16 are deadlinks and appear to be another of his publishers' web sites. That leaves nothing that we can use as the basis for an article or to show notability. And the past history of AfDs for this article leaves me unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt that better sources can be turned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2014 (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.