Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasily Klyukin


 * 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. A recreation is possible, but only if the sourcing is good and the tone is neutral.  Sandstein  11:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Vasily Klyukin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a non-notable person and is possibly autobiographical. FinnHK (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  20:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I myself would've also nominated because none of this has any convincing signs and, despite the collection of links, none of seem solid enough for a better article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Moreover, the links provided in this article clearly indicate us the evidence of Vasily Klyukin's works, his interaction with the most famous people of the world, as well as the popular mass media articles about his life and activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SwisterTwister, you should absolutely be nominated if you google your name and see it as top result, just like it is with Vasily Klyukin. Besides it, all you will need to do is to publish 2 successful books and to make top mass media write about you in over 1000 articles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.173.118.69 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)  — 46.173.118.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * DON'T Delete I think there are more than enough references in the article, proving that it's not about non-notable person.
 * These references only prove that the media is happy to publish nearly anything in the search for more clicks. His ideas are creative but there is no evidence to suggest they are anything more than the creative work of anyone on any 3D modeling forum. FinnHK (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a question to the comments above. Do you really believe that over 1000 articles worldwide could be published about non-notable person? It's hard to imagine how notable the person should be, if Vasily Klyukin is not notable enough for you, guys... Virtually all of the top mass media, such as CNN, Yahoo, Forbes, GQ, Telegraph, Le Monde, etc. published numerous articles about his futuristic skyscrapers, villas and yachts, as well as his sculptures. Let me underline it again, these articles are not just self-made, but it was published by the most influential and popular mass media sources in the world. If we will neglect it, we should pay no attention to the most public figures, show business stars and celebrities as well. Please check out just few links provided in this Wikipedia article (there is a bunch of links is still to be added). Moreover, his books can be purchased in the stores all over the world, or for example, at Amazon: Designing Legends [] and Collective Mind [].

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not pushing for a delete, but I would certainly advocate re-writing it. It's so puffy and self-promotional and a victim of WP:WEASEL Lines like "His designs became well-known worldwide thanks to his innovative approach", where's the citation or evidence for that assertion? I have lots of issues with it, but they are predominantly stylistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupsbunch (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources presented by Arthistorian1977 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to a Keep now, since it looks like he's passing WP:CREATIVE with this, , , , , . Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - He may pass notability criteria, but this current article needs to go per WP:TNT. Highly promotional, covers none of the negative publicity about this architect, which in my searches outweighed the positive coverage. Notability is not the only reason for deletion, this would qualify under WP:DEL4.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete - A little uncertain about this one. After searching Google, it does seem like there is some considerable news coverage (Daily Mail, Fox News) - granted, it's not a whole lot. But it would appear the subject is most notable for being an architect, not necessarily for being a writer, so I don't think going into extensive detail about his books and then citing Amazon as the source is necessary, encyclopedic, or even appropriate. I also strongly agree that this article is *extremely* promotional. I'm not an expert on space-traveling Monacan architects so this can go either way for me. I ultimately lean towards delete because of the strongly promotional language and the lack of reliable sources in the article. If the article is kept, I would strongly support a rewrite. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2016 (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.