Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Bogaevsky


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Bogaevsky

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. No assertion of notability (professors are not automatically notable), Google search with and without the middle name brings up nothing except the Wikipedia article and zero reliable sources have been provided to establish notability or verifiability. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The Russian article (Google translate) leads me to believe that notability could be established using Russian sources.  Chzz  ►  05:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question The Russian article has 1 reference which contains 1 very brief paragraph on Bogaevsky. Apparently he was a professor, he lectured and toured, and he was one of many thousands fleeing Russia after the revolution. The only potentially notable feat seems to be that he is said to be co-founder of the "Free University" in Sofia, but as far as I see from a Google search this university does not exist any more (at least not under that name) and this may therefore not be any "university" in the current sense. What makes you conclude fro; the Russian article that sources should be available? --Crusio (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  —Qwfp (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  —Qwfp (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I realize that in your (i.e., the self-proclaimed 'editors') respective nerdoms, an article on Star Trek has to be FULLY WRITTEN and CITED and NOTORIETY established and what-the-heck-not -- when it is posted, but for this contributor, the entire point of wikipedia is to create a kernel that will organically grow. If you want to suggest something for deletion based on lack of notoriety, do yourself a favor and ask yourself whether the fact that you don't know someone or something is evidence of that thing's lack of notoriety, or your lack of intelligence.  Back off and let the article grow, dots.  Majordomo41 (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Look, in all sincerity, and upon further reflection, the above comment is probably a little too heated. I am a scholar of Russian law.  The reason I created the page was because the guy is a major figure in the development of Russian international law.  Russian archival material on his is all over the place.  The wiki allows folks across the world to congeal information and sources on him.  What is the big deal with auto delete now?  Give an article a month or two, for crying out loud.  This takes 2kb of server space, no copyright problems, nothing the matter or anything to raise flags except that it's a short bio byline.  That's not sufficient to trigger a delete notice.  Where's the good faith presumption?  Clearly the biologist who creates a wiki page on a new protein he's just discovered warrants publication to see if other folks can chip in on his discovery.  Your new bots are Nazis that would kill his discovery in the name of damn-knows-what.  You want something to delete, go patrol or clean up Power_Rangers or something of that sort.  Leave obscure 19th century Russian jurists to the masters.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majordomo41 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I have three remarks. 1/ If archival material is "all over the place", it should be easy to add some sources to the article. They don't need to be online, print is fine, too. They don't have to be in English, either. (Of course, an English online reference is easier to verify :-). 2/ As you already !voted once before, I have struck your second vote. 3/ I recommend that you read WP:CIVIL. Your above comments are really out of line. You want us to assume good faith, why don't you then do the same for the nom? And why all the excitement? For the moment, there are only keep !votes. In general, putting forward your arguments in a less emotional and aggressive tone is much more effective in convincing other people of the validity of your arguments. --Crusio (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The trope of recent 'administrative edits' I've seen is not encouraging; hence the excitement. As you can imagine, this is not the first time that I and others have had kernel articles deleted.  I have had an article submitted for deletion 10 minutes after the first 'byline' was created and WHILE I was putting final touches on a fully cited, referenced, 500 page article.  By the time I clicked "Save Page" one of YOU had deleted it.  I tried to go back on the browser to retrieve my work, but to no avail.  The comments are directed precisely at YOU, the admin.  In other words, perhaps this will get you to understand that the original model of organic growth was more efficient and smarter.  I have been with wikipedia since 2004.  I have made anonymous edits on upwards of 1000+ pages.  I participated in Wikimania in Alexandria.  I'm pissed off by the rapidfire trigger-happy individual policing, and I am trying to appeal to YOU on a grassroots level, to again, back off nascent articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majordomo41 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1/ As far as I know, I have not been involved in speedy deletion of any article created by you. 2/ I am not an admin. 3/ I strongly suggest you tone it down. This kind of rude, uncivil yelling is what gets you blocked from editing WP. As for the articles that were deleted and what you are so upset about, you should make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's binding policies on sources. I have had a look at your edit history and most articles you have created are barely-referenced stubs. If you have indeed been active on WP for as long as you say, I am amazed at your amazement that these unsourced stubs on people of unclear notability (exactly because of the lack of proper sourcing) get proposed for deletion. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Did some work on the article, although what is in the Russian version should be incorporated and eventually cited. That he helped found the University of National and World Economy - as it is now named, is good enough for a solid keep. He very probably was notable as a Russian professor of international law; there are very likely other good references in century old Russian and Bulgarian legal periodicals and the like, but digging them up is not a minor endeavour for most of us. Crusio of course just asked questions that needed to be answered eventually.  Calmth is usually a good idea here.John Z (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per JohnZ's improvement of the article.--Crusio (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to John Z's improvements. Founder of a 90-year-old university with 16,000 students should easily be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per JZ. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2009 (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.