Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Isupov


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Isupov

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

Inpossible to read, maybe also non-notable. Highest Heights (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article was only "impossible to read" if nobody tried to give the creator any help with formatting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Ginormous résumé that they didn't even TRY to make into a true article. Seems they've mistaken this for Résumépedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did you even TRY to help the editor who was unfamilar with Wikipedia formatting? If you're here to help build the encyclopedia rather than to knock down others efforts to do so then I suggest that you help out the newbies rather than bite them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete . He does get some hits in Google News, which may or may not add up to notability, but this is not a helpful start to an article. It is such a mess that it would be better to delete and start from scratch. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This has masses of good content that we won't have a hope of recreating if the article is deleted. The only problem is that the creator doesn't know Mediawiki markup - is that a reason to delete an article on such a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Well done for parsing any sense out of it. I have struck out my delete vote as the current content is effectively a rewrite. It wasn't simply a formatting issue. When a biography or resume is so obviously pasted in from another source it is quite likely to be a copyvio but I am happy that the extent of the rewriting has neutralised any such concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please be civil, assume good faith and refrain from making unsourced negative remarks about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see what's uncivil about my observation that this is a resume. If you think you can improve this article and make it objective, fine, but don't go around throwing WP word salads at people because you disagree with their observations. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you had made the observation that this is a resume then it would have been fine, but accusing the article subject of vanity is not civil. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were accusing anyone of anything, I'd direct my comments to the article creator. As stated, it is merely a witty catchphrase standing in for "Subject is not notable given what the article demonstrates and further research obtains nothing.  Most likely a vanity page."  I don't see vanity as a negative buzzword, but I guess some people do, so I'll discontinue my catchphrase.  Too bad, it was witty enough to get quoted in an anti-Wikipedia article once. Wait, I guess I see your point now... x_x JuJube (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per and many more. The article creator is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting, so shouldn't the reaction be to help rather than pile on to demand deletion of an article about a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe if someone re-wrote it with sources, I'd consider changing my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe you could have looked beyond the article creator's technical inability to format the article correctly and seen that that the article already had loads of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. On formatting this to make it look half-way presentable I've found that right from the beginning it contained many sources, including quite a few magazine articles with Isupov as the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've added another 29 reliable sources on top of the ones the were there to start with, and made a start on formatting/wikifying. I've spent a good few hours doing that, and it's now bed-time in my time zone, so maybe one of the editors above that complained about this being badly written would like to make some further improvements? I think I've used up just about everything that can be viewed via Google News, but I haven't even looked at the Google web search results yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Multiple works in major museums is notability for an artist. We accept there standards of what is notable in the field. Or are we a better judge than the curators of the MFA Boston, and LA? and of about a dozen others in a number of countries? DGG (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep after Phil Bridger's clean-up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:12, 6 June 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.