Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inna Halubets

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. clear consensus. AfD is better than speedy for these in one respect : it lets us use G5 for recreation. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Halubets[edit]

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

This article should be deleted for failing WP:BASIC, and per the outcome of the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iurie Emilian.

I trust we can agree to the following: being "an elected volunteer member of the Eurasia Regional Scout Committee of the World Organization of the Scout Movement" does not confer any sort of notability, absent "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-at least 4 people disagreed with you last time, so no, we don't all agree with you, and again I point out your bad faith. I already knew you were lazy, failing even to split the two last nominations into sections, and I already knew you were dirty, based on your red herrings, even if your understanding of notability is thorough, but failing six times to warn the author (prod and afd), and your smug, gloating edit summaries, [1] are too much. I deny your competence as a Wikipedian and cast aspersions on your homepage tag that you are somehow "trying to spread peace." I call bullshit. People who lie are liars.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Top of that you're a troll [2]. Bring it to an admin, I dare you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources to establish notability. Calling people "trolls" is not generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia and I would ask Kinetetsubuffalo to refrain from such personal attacks on other editors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is trolling generally considered behavior acceptable on Wikipedia? Have you even looked at the diffs? Didn't think so.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Kintetsubuffalo. --evrik ^(talk) 16:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Said "rationales" happen to entirely avoid addressing WP:BASIC, fulfilling which is sort of a basic (heh) requirement for biographies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is not going to be saved by hurling insults and abuse, but by demonstrating that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Anything else is just a distraction. Furthermore, as WP:NPA admonishes, "comment on content, not on the contributor". (And yes, stuff like this surely crosses the line from a CIV matter to an NPA one.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wish both sides of this discussion would calm down. Kintetsubuffalo please address the issues and not attack other editors. Biruitorul, have you seriously looked for sources? We are all volunteers. We build articles slowly. This article and the others you nominated are quite new. The World Organization of the Scout Movement is an important body and people associated with it and its continental regions are likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on. Many of those notices may not be in English. I think this nomination should be withdrawn to give editors time to look for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion runs for a week. If someone adduces evidence that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", of course I shall withdraw. Until then, the burden of proving notability rests on the "keep" voters. And remember, we need actual sources, not airy suppositions about what is "likely to be noticed in the press fairly frequently as time goes on" (a formulation that smacks of crystal balling). - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - and replying to pretty well every comment is not appropriate! It smacks of bullying. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)--Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything that isn't from the official scout site or a Wikipedia mirror. It actually may qualify for A7. Also, for the record, WP:FUCKYOUKEEP doesn't appear to redirect to WP:ADHOM, but maybe it should. Also, for the record, some people in the conversation probably need to go the hell outside and cool their jets for a while before things escalate further than they already have. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fairly clear failure of GNG. The Cyrillic name generates zero Google hits outside of WP and a mirror, the sources showing are inadequate for a GNG pass, and I'm not seeing anything for the Latin name either. The elected position falls far short of the WP:POLITICIAN SNG. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2016 (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.