Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Kogan (2nd nomination)

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. While numerically dominant, the "keep" opinions are not based in policy, and cannot be given much weight. Assertions of notability don't mean anything when not backed up by evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kogan

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G4 was declined. But same issues still apply, will simply repost the original editor's (Oliver Virk) nominating comment: "Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Turkmenistan, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a promotional profile of a non-notable person who seems adept at generating promotional profiles for himself. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above, promo piece, probably would quality for G11. If ru.wp thinks its a problem there, its definitely an issue on en.wp. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since text does not meet even the standards for a decent promotional brochure, let alone the elementary criteria of WP:GNG set down by Wikipedia. As to the Forbes piece allegedly praising Kogan for managing "Nordea Bank to become number one in 'The most stable banks in Russia' " I'm still trying to find it. A bank manager, like millions of others. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significance is supported by work in important companies and a great contribution to their development. Dimetr (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this person passed WP:GNG. This manager made Nordea Bank (Russia) the most reliable in country. Else he developed the legal framework for the Credit Bureau, which is an integral part of the Russian financial market; made a significant contribution to Aeroflot. All facts was confirmed by independent media, is not just "bank manager, like millions of others". ЖуковАФ (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again with the non-arguments! Well, thankfully, our perennial pest, the simple assertion of notability, still does not cut it. Neither do the simple claim that there are sources out there nor our personal opinion about the text's usefulness. Sourcing is paramount. And after examining what little is already cited and what very little else can be found, it is trivially ascertained that our bank manager's notability cannot rise above millions of others'. Wikipedia is not a vanity project. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally no reliable sources. From all appearances, this is a run of the mill business person. Phrases like "most reliable bank" is unhelpful. Fails WP:BASIC. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Russian manager from Nordea Bank who developed the legal framework for the Russian Credit Bureau. I see different reliable sources for him.--Fenikals (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More assertions that "the person is important" and "surely, there are sources". -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for PROMO. Non-notable business person, links given don't discuss the subject, or only mention them in passing. Being important is fine, but we have no sources discussing the person that we can see are in RS. COI in the Russian wiki is also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dear Wikipedia colleagues, I followed the WP: BASIC guidelines while writing the article: “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria.”OnIPliOn (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable business person from a big bank. Article has a WP:RS, and person passed WP:BLP. Article is subject for work, not for delete. Can't make a links to ru.wiki because rules are different. Kasfe (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Igor Kogan is not only a notable figure in the Russian banking business, but also a significant public figure, initiating the development of a legislative framework for the creation of the institute of credit history bureaus in Russia, and was also a columnist for the leading Russian newspaper Vedomosti, which makes it possible to keep this article about him. Криворучка (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2023 (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.