Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Golobordko
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 AfD filed under wrong article title. The title of this AfD refers to "Alexey Golobordko", while the actual article title is "Alexey Golobrodko". There is a correctly titled AfD for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Golobrodko. (Note: My own "speedy keep" recommendation applied only to the non-reason submitted in this AfD, but is no longer applicable with respect to the correctly titled AfD where there is a legitimate nomination reason.) Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Alexey Golobrodko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is very talented -----limited2fan 02:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limited2fan (talk • contribs) 2010/05/16 02:30:23
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nomination is not a plausible justification for deletion. If someone has a valid reason to request deletion, they should renominate the article with that valid reason. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while the nomination is a bit strange, the article lacks any reliable sources whatsoever, and a Google search didn't look promising. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO. It might even be a copyright violation from here. Huon (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently the same article is also being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Golobrodko; there some sources seem to have been found . Huon (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.