Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Fekula


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Fekula

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not a banker, nor a person, of much, if any, note, or notability, in the City and the State of New York, in the United States of America. Extensive COI-editing, either by himself, via and through unconfirmed, but similar IP addresses and numbers, or by his personal friend, a certain Mister John Derbyshire, through and via his suspected account and and his also suspected personal IP address and number. [The article was created by an unregistered user with an IP address and number, and further edits, almost certainly by his same person, were made with other IP addresses and numbers within the same, or of a similar, range, from the United States.] An autobiography, without much [of a] doubt. -- KC9TV 13:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 19:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.  Sources offered are trivial and useless.  I searched Google, looking for something better, but found nothing.  Additionally, the entire article is hagiographic, not WP:NPOV.  Msnicki (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources. Readin (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete — I came to the same conclusions as the Msnicki. COI, RS, and many BLP issues are in fact irrelevant to WP:N, but they do explain why the content exists at all. Before editing for BLP issues, I looked at the search links and got the impression the subject was very far from WP:GNG. I removed the worst BLP violations, namely unsupported claims about third parties and self-serving claims. Looking again without all the junk in the way, I still didn't see anything notable to hang WP:ANYBIO or other alternative criteria. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per 'who?' Seriously, why would anyone think this guy merits a Wikipedia bio? Nothing in the article suggests that he does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Mr. Fekula is evidently one of Mr. John Derbyshire's personal friends. I wonder who actually wrote this? Mr. Fekula, or Mr. Debryshire? I had absolutely no joy in finding anything off from Google, other than things from MySpace/FaceBook and Linkedin, which is usually to be discounted (does not count), and the "Russian Children's Welfare Society". -- KC9TV 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A Post-script:- Not entirely off-topic of course, since Messrs Fekula and Derbyshire are personal friends to one and other, but does Mr. Derbyshire actually realise, or realize, that he was in fact, and in effect, "slagging off" his own son (or does he even care to care)? -- KC9TV 02:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Wp fekula (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. I am the subject of this discussion and have the following points to make. 1. This is not an autobiography but a biography submitted by John Derbyshire who has been aquainted with me for many years. Most Wikipedia entries that I am aware of on lives of performing artists are submitted by agents who are paid by the artist. That to me is a much bigger conflict than Mr. Derbyshire who was not compensated and submitted the article some six years ago.He is a very accomplished author and I am stunned that the critics do not even give him credit for his very successful writings.It appears that none of the them even took the time to learn who he is before challenging his credentials. 2. The article is totally accurate and confined to eastablished facts of my career. The only edits I have personally made were to insure accuracy.3. My career on Wall Street was noteworthy amongst leaders in the profession as one can observe by checking history of my accomplishments and the colleagues I came in contact with. Senior management of the firms that employed me trusted my integrity and professionalism and placed with me the full authority to act in the best interest of preserving capital. One can surmise loss of sound credit risk policies after I retired in 2004.4. I have no idea o the knowledge my anonymous critics possess in the financial business. I am aware that any "celebrity" has no problems getting space in Wikipedia through people who take a percentage but many very qualified business and other professionals are not mentioned. 5.The charity I am currently involved with has been doing good work in enhancing the lives of children at risk.It has been in business since 1926 and submits audited financial statements every year. It has raised millions of dollars over the years. As President and CEO I have been fortunate to annually have the leading performers of the Metropolitan Opera world perform without any compensation for the benefit of the organization.Why the critics have totally discounted these important, unique accomplishments is a mystery. Perhaps none of these anonymous critcs attend the opera. All the names listed are verifiable and many list the charity in their Wikipedia bios.6. I regret that not one critic has done his job faithfully and I am personally hurt by some of the crude unthoughtful remarks. It does not serve Wikipedia well.I am more than willing to discuss with anyone associated with this disparagement of my honor and integrity Vladimir Fekula


 * A simple question. Why do you think that Wikipedia readers would expect to find an encyclopaedic entry on you? What have you done to merit this, with regard to the requirements of Wikipedia notability policy? As for your acquaintance with John Derbyshire, why the fuck do you think that we should care about you knowing this obnoxious little shit? If you don't like 'crude remarks' don't hand around with those that deserve them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"As for your acquaintance with John Derbyshire, why the fuck do you think that we should care about you knowing this obnoxious little shit?"

The person writing this is a Wikipedia editor? I thought Wikipedia believed itself to be a serious enterprise? Two taboo words in one sentence -- this is supposed to contribute to a discussion somehow?

Taboo noise-words aside, how does this writer know that I am obnoxious or little? Has he ever met me? I am, in point of fact, 6ft 1in and 190 lbs, and quite fit, as the writer would find out if he cared to confront me in person with his insults. That is, of course, the last thing in the world he would care to do.

There is a notion out here in the real world that Wikipedia is, so far as its entries on living persons are concerned, a vehicle for 14-year-old left-liberal nitwits to work off their grudges, and their infantile fondness for potty-mouth abuse. Not hard to see where such a notion came from.

John Derbyshire


 * How do I know you are an obnoxious shit? Simple, I've read your works. As for 'little', I clearly meant in terms of significance to the world. And I'm neither 14 years old, a 'liberal', nor a nitwit (I went to the same university as you, and came out with a first). Meanwhile, stepping back from the mutual exchange of insults, since you are responsible for the ludicrous bit of fluff we are discussing here, would you care to explain the grounds on which an article on Vladimir Fekula meets Wikipedia policies regarding notability - and provide proper sources to demonstrate this. Whatever Wikipedia is, it isn't a forum for posting smug and hyperbolic waffle about your acquaintances. As far as I can ascertain from easily accessible third-party sources, there is little evidence that the gentleman concerned exists, yet alone that he has done anything to merit an article here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - insults tend to show the weakness in one's case. This subject is not a notable person in the New York area. Much of the information has not a single citation. This person is probably a very nice man, but is not famous as we define it. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to post similar remarks. Insults and crude remarks are unnecessary.  What may be helpful is explaining that here on Wikipedia, we only have articles about WP:NOTABLE subjects.  But we define that word differently here than many people expect.  It's not enough that a subject seems notable, there have to be other people not associated with subject who took note and they have to have done it in non-trivial ways in reliable sources.  Generally speaking, it takes two good sources, e.g., two magazine or news articles about the subject, to establish notability.  Msnicki (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2012 (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.