Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valery Nikolayevsky


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Valery Nikolayevsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability of the person is not proved. The article in ru.wiki is deleted in cause of this. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He is a non-notable author. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I can find no reliable sources covering the subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete agree..cannot show sufficient notability Infinitely Humble (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Notable enough to be censored for 22 years, and to generate political pressure in Russia to keep a more recent work unpublished. If he's been heard of in the Kremlin I'd say that's pretty darn notable. Has written several works. If we are not familiar with him in the west, does not mean he is not notable. Remember WP:NOTCENSORED 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question, have you got any sources for any of that? Significant coverage in reliable sources is the primary criterion for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been attempting to find out more. A lot of the webpages are difficult to translate : However he is listed at the EBSEES [] also here []. Without translating this it would be difficult to estimate his notability. Could be important. Let's not be hasty.62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read german, the two sources you provide establish that he is the author of a couple of books, and nothing more. Being a author does not translate automatically to notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we don't know a lot on this yet so let's not be hasty. It's easy enough to add a few 's to the article which i shall do. I suggest we let it stay, till more research is done. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that the article has no reliable sources, and that when I search Google for him in news, books, and scholar, I get 0 hits. That does not bode well for establishment of his notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Most likely an issue with the spelling of his name, try in Russian - Валерий Михайлович Николаевский, or Valerij Nikolaevskij. I have found several links. He is definitely a poet. I have put some of his poetry through babel-fish, into english (probably not best translation) however I think this is important. Let's give this a bit of time. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources with show significant coverage of the article subject, present them, there is no reason to be coy. Examples of his work are not really relevant, what we need are reviews of his work, awards he has received, coverage of him in newspapers and magazines, that kind of thing. Russian sources are fine, but I ask that you provide translations. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What? Did no-one actually look at the article, everything is sourced reliably. Look at the links - Standford University - Library and Academic Resources (SU-LAIR) for example. Would not be on Stanford's database if he was not notable. Will continue to look for reviews etc. Please remove from deletion to give time for thorough research to be done. 2.45 am here, can't work all through the night! Thanks62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is notability, see WP:AUTHOR. IMO, the sources in the article do not meet these criteria. The mere fact that the subject has published works does not meet the bar. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If one of his works is on Stanford University Library Database would you not say that is evidence enough of notability? And as the content regarding his one of his works being censored for 22 years is verifiable then should we not regard his notability as self-evident on that ground? I'll be happy to expand the references, as suitable material is located. A quick Google search is no indication of notability or lack of it. Lack of coverage is not necessarily the same as lack of notability  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the relevant policies. Having a book listed in the Stanford University Library Database does not establish the notability of the author, and lack of significant coverage in reliable sources is pretty much the definition of lack of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources. Publishing a book is not grounds for notability per WP:AUTHOR. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stanford University is a reliable source, it has limited financial resources so does not include every book published. As a University it would obviously want to include only works of scholarly importance. We know they would not list every book published. So it is not simply a case that he has just published a book. It is also kept for perusal by scholars. He has had several books published, and according to a reliable independent academic source linked to in the article one of those was censored for 22 years. Here is what WP:NOTCENSORED was meant to be used for. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 of the "references" in the article were circular citations to wikipedia clones. The ones that remain are simply pages that state the book exists, not why it should be notable.  The marginal cost to include a book in a database rounds to zero.  Furthermore, I read the google translation of the one seller page that had a "review"  identifying the views as fringe.  Therefore, I am now even more firmly convinced the article should be deleted per WP:FRINGE.  I will not respond to any further comments unless they include a reliable source linked.  Sailsbystars (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to quarrel, I have looked at the academic site, and yes it links to wikipedia, which I had not noticed at first. In discussing this lets remember WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and Don't be inconsiderate []. I shall take out the reference link I put in, it wasn't done to provoke. However it would be good idea to retain the article and add expert-subject to see if there can be some further sources not available online located. We need to remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP. I have only come to this article last night for the first. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was at one time an expert in comparative literature, and the mere fact that he's a living person and there are no references in google suggest that he's not a notable subject. I suggest that since you have such a keen interest, if the article is deleted, that you create an account and request the article be moved to your user space. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would certainly consider doing that in the event of deletion, could you point me to somewhere on wikipedia that gives guidance on how to do that. However in the meantime would you be prepared to consider keeping the article for a little while longer and adding the expert-subject template (see discussion page)[] 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not up to me whether or not to keep the article. If it is deleted, you can request that the person that closes it move it. Not all such requests are honored. You can also ask that a deletion be reviewed at Deletion_review. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, no problem. Will wait and see the outcome, thanks for explaining the options available. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Lack of search results above are due to variations in spelling of his name: I ran another search and it has come up with more results. These need to be checked more thoroughly. [] 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2010 (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.