Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Litvak

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. Unlike the "delete" opinions, the "keep" opinions do not discuss the quality of the sources cited in the article and do not refute the "delete" side's arguments. Sandstein 12:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Litvak[edit]

[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)

His cases are a few of them notable -- he is not/ The articles on him are promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources cited do not provide Litvak significant coverage: they only mention him in passing while discussing a newsworthy case. The rest of the sources are mostly interviews or other non-independent sources; all that's left is "Vents Magazine", which in my view (and and the view of others) is not a reliable source. My Internet search found only more of the same. Fails the GNG/WP:BASIC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect your judgement. I added 2 more sources and through the research tabs on the article in the banner I found many other sources but included the ones where he is discussed in detail. I believe he passes WP:GNG as per my understanding. Your views are much appreciated.JillViktor37 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*keep Hi I came here randomly and after reading and checking the sources I believe it better from many articles but I know we can't compare, so reliable sources definition fits here as per my analysis. MontDuo12 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing at a level that would actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment well sourced and all are reliable sources. Marc TW (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are non-independent sources (directories, etc., and an interview), and the remaining sources are about the famed hackers he defended (unsuccessfully), and that mention him. I don't see any significant independent sources about him. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (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.