Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev


 * 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   no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination with semi-protection to keep out meatpuppets. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like WP:PROMOTION. All sources refer to Russian-language sites. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN Gdv777 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep:: WP:PROMOTION is not applicable as the sources are reliably sources. WP:ANYBIO specifies additional caveats, but for the basic inclusion, WP:BASIC is relevant. WP:POLITICIAN, this article passes #2 of it. In any case, just the fact that it is in another language does not justify its deletion. See WP:NOENG. It also passes the general notability guideline. Ging287 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep:: As stated above WP:PROMOTION does not apply because the article is well cited and merely because the sources are Russian does not justify a deletion. In order to make the information more credible, additional sources in English have been added. The article passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN and the general notability guideline. Article does not fail WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC applies as person has considerable coverage in both Russia and Western press. • Wallnut tree (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2014


 * I think, it fails #2 of WP:POLITICIAN because the goals of the Guild of Purveyors slightly differ from politics - you can read it on their website (here). In my opinion, it also fails of WP:GNG, because of it's sources (WP:NOR). So, I think that the article must be deleted. Gdv777 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't have it both ways. Either he is a politican, and then he passes #2 of WP:POLITICIAN or he isn't one, and the additional caveat doesn't qualify. Ging287 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment


 * Numerous users and IP users have been removing/omitting sources, for seemingly vague reasons. 'Black PR' and other stuff. Ging287 (talk) 16:34, 6 April 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 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)



Delete:: Now the article is made of unverified information - so it should be deleted. Kliff93 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)



Delete:: Looks like this article was created just to spoil reputation of mentioned person. It refers to strange articles from uknown authors. It should be deleted. Manaos (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC) 
 * 'Unknown authors' Do you mean reliable sources? They are independent from the subject and just because an article doesn't make sense, it shouldn't be deleted. Content can be edited by anyone, so WP:SOFIXIT applies. Tutelary (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete : Sergei Vasiliev cannot be regarded as a political figure. He is a businessman and has rather an indirect relation to the politics. Also, the information in the article is misrepresented. It's said that he was honored a lot of awards, including the highest public award of the Russian Federation in the field of food production, but in fact not he, but the company was awarded. The Order of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 3rd Class and the letters of thanks also cannot be considered significant awards (contradiction WP:ANYBIO). In the cited references Vasiliev is only mentioned in the text, significant coverage of his activities, as required by WP:GNG, is absent. Regarding the controversy – it's only a brief burst of news coverage, ie it's necessary to remember the WP:NTEMP rule. The article on Ground Report cannot be considered reliable and third-party, news on this site can be written by anyone. Polina Popova, author of the article "The "Krysha" – Oligarchs and their Protectors" had registered on the website and published her article the same day – March 5, 2014. 213.87.131.147 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has been repeatedly censored and blanked by Sockpuppets and possible meatpuppets in an attempt to censor the reliably source controversy section. It passes WP:GNG, content should be regarded under WP:UNDUE and such.
 * I propose to consider each source separatelly.
 * 2, 10 – official web site, ie not an independent source of information.
 * 9 – web site, where the article can be published by anyone, unreliable source (author – unknown Polina Popova).
 * 3 – news refer to the article of freelancer Polina Popova (9th source), moreover the information about Sergei Vasiliev is incomplete, thus besides the fact that the reliability of information is in doubt, significant coverage is about the company, but not about the person of Vasiliev.
 * 4, 6 – the same article in the blog EconoMonitor, and again siginificant part of the article is devoted to the company and a couple of lines to Sergei Vasiliev.
 * 5 – too few information about Vasiliev, absolutely no data, except the fact that he was involved in a kind of controversy and is the head of the guild of Kremlin suppliers.
 * 7, 8 – the same article, nothing except the information about the scandal again.
 * Ie WP:GNG compliance wasn not shown, as well as the apparennt contradiction to the rule WP:NTEMP (brief surge of interest).
 * Tne only source that is possible to pay attention to is the first one (although the article revolves around the same scandal). However, according to the rules the presence of multiple sources is necessary (third WP:GNG note). 213.87.131.69 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete : I agree that this article should be deleted. I have looked through infromation - strange facts about "pushed other companies" and references to articled which have been written by uknown outsorsers. And this man is not political man, so the whole part of text is not relevant. In outcome we see that his page has beed created by competitors and it is not acceptable for wikipedia. 178.124.104.92 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2014

Delete : First of all - this article is not useful for people. And yes - I agree with above mentioned opinions - sourses looks very strange and unreliable. Looks unreal that the same people protect such information in article and now they protect this article. Their tryings to save such pieces of not approved information which can damage reputation of this preson looks rather strange. My be they are not neutral in this case. 89.178.101.21 (talk) 16:58, 22 April 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.