Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mykola Udianskyi

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. David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola Udianskyi

[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)

Note: This article was nominated for speedy deletion by Vanderwaalforces as a recreation of the article Nikolai Udianskyi, which had been deleted as the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolai Udianskyi (Speedy deletion criterion G4). I agreed with the nomination, and deleted the article. However, the creator of the article then contested the deletion. Many years ago I decided that there is so much variation in different editors' ideas as to how similar a new page has to be to a deleted one to justify G4, that arguing about it is usually futile, so I follow a policy of setting a very low bar for restoring a G4 deleted article, and taking it to a new AfD, rather than defending the original deletion.

Different sources refer to "Mykola Udyanskyi" or to "Nikolai Udyansky", but everything indicates that they are the same person. At least the difference in the surname seems to be a matter of whether it is transcribes from Russian or from Ukrainian. The previous deletion discussion was started by David Gerard, who wrote "Promotional bio for cryptocurrency entrepreneur. No evidence of passing en:wp notability. ... The Ukrainian version of the article uses the same bad sources as the English version. WP:BEFORE shows press releases and crypto sites.", and the same pretty well summarises the current article. Scarcely any of the cited sources give substantial coverage of Udyansky, and many of them are not reliable and independent sources either. At present there are 20 references in the article. I have had a look at them all, most of them in either Russian or Ukrainian, and I have relied on Google translation. (Incidentally, the Forbes article offers its own English version, but it is so incoherent as to be largely incomprehensible.) I offer a description of the first seven cited sources, but the other 13 are similar.

https://bits.media/predprinimatel-nikolay-udyanskiy-prodal-birzhu-localtrade-i-razrabatyvaet-dve-reguliruemye-birzhi-v-/ News announcement (possibly press release) that Udyansky has sold "the LocalTrade exchange", and is working on two more exchanges. A couple of pragraphs about the work of his company: not substantial coverage of Udyansky himself. (The web site's "about us" page describes itself as a "platform for enthusiasts, developers, miners, traders, creators of cryptocurrency services and startup founders". (Google translation.)

https://dev.ua/ru/news/made-in-ukraine-crypto-exchanges-wallets-tokens A listing of numerous cryptoexchanges in Ukraine, including a couple of sentences about an exchanged jointly developed by Udyansky and another businessman. One sentence mentions his name.

https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-release/863354.html No mention of Udianskyi at all.

https://forklog.com/news/direktor-kriptobirzhi-coinsbit-nikolaj-udyanskij-prodal-dolyu-v-kompanii A news announcement (very likely a press release) that Udyansky had "sold a stake in a company". A few statements about his company and about work he is planning to do. Actually more about him than any other cited source yet, but still not by any stretch substantial coverage of him.

https://daily.rbc.ua/ukr/show/it-rynok-ukrainy-rabotaet-samoy-dinamichno-1614070059.html A listing of a very large number of IT companies active in Ukraine, with brief details about each. A few sentences about Udianskyi's company. The only mentions of Udianskyi himself are "Founders: Mykola Udyanskyi and Bohdan Prilepa" and "At the end of 2019, Mykola Udyansky sold his stake in Coinsbit".

https://elita.org.ua/mykola-udians-kyy-ukrains-kyy-it-pidpryiemets-hromads-kyy-diiach-i-naukovets/ This is the first of the sources I have mentioned which is essentially about Udianskyi, but it is substantially just a timeline, with dates of his birth, his various career moves, and so on. Not substantial coverage of him. It is published on a website which invites user-submitted material for publication.

https://forbes.ua/ru/profile/mikola-udyanskiy-475 This is perhaps the cited source with the nearest there is to substantial coverage of Udyansky, but even it is not really substantial. It includes information such as "Trading volumes on the Udyansky crypto exchange Coinsbit have fallen significantly", "The businessman's assets in Ukrainian real estate also suffered losses", etc. Also consensus in past discussions has been that "Most content on Forbes.com is written by Senior Contributors or Contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable". (Quoted from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes) The cited source also describes itself as "Nikolai Udyansky /from personal archive"; I am not sure what that means, but it may mean that it is from Udyansky's own material. JBW (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I want clarify that he included in top 100 ukrainians by networth by Forbes magazine on 59th place in 2021 and Forbes profile is'nt an article by some Author/Contributor. According to WP:SIRS one good reliable source is enough. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found another one bio here and here. Pls evaluate them too Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Top 59th in Forbes ranking here and here, Why should I prove his notability anymore? If reason of deletion not notability, but quality of the page, so let's consider make tag {{expert needed}} and wait someone who can help me develop it. Or you expect I can built from scratch A-class page? No, Start-class is enough. Thx for attention. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability isn't conferred just by having a certain wealth or net worth ranking, we need RS that mention it; see WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG. The person is not a company; SIRS hence doesn't apply. Fermiboson (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Ukraine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the G4, but here we are. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
from CSD guide:
G4: recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion
The Page Curation tool will highlight pages that were previously deleted. You can also check the history.

G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies; this is hard to assess without access to the former page, but if in doubt nominate and the patrolling admin will compare the current version to the deleted history.
Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability, most sources used aren't even picked up by sourcebot, those are are, marked as orange, so iffy. I can't find notable sources for this individual, I do agree it could have been G4'd, but it's here now anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to acomplish WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG page was extended by adding a few reliable links as well to Forbes and Militarnyi UA Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at all of the new references you have added. I am not going to put in the time and effort it took to comment on each one individually, as I did with the previous ones, but what you have added is more of the same; none of them give substantial coverage of him, and many of them are not independent of him. I'm afraid it looks as though you may be making a mistake which is very common among new editors of Wikipedia, namely thinking that the answer to being told that an article is inadequately sourced is to add a larger number of sources similar to the existing ones, but it isn't. Three references which are substantial coverage of the subject from reliable and independent sources are fine; 50 references which fail one or more of those three criteria do nothing at all towards showing notability, and 100 are no better than 50. JBW (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to acomplish WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG page was extended by adding a few reliable links such as RBC-Ukraine, Ukranians Govt sources, Forbes Ukraine and Militarnyi UA, dev.ua Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I learned a lot past week and want mention JBW, Vanderwaalforces, Fermiboson, Oaktree b on double standarts which I found. Take a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleksandr_Yaroslavskyi . Looks like a joke - mocking me because of Forbes is not enough, while "unsourced" article still exist even after AfD Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi. They are both from Kharkiv to comparison. Both on Forbes-based dossier. So then please start AfD again. Btw, I'll add "In exile" paragraph to the page to improve. Regarding Mykola - very friendly environment - blaming for G4 while ignoring the conclusions of JBW, who explicitly said that g4 doesn't apply here. From CSD guide: "G4 only applies to sufficiently identical copies;".Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We only vote on deletion here, I'm not responsible for improving the articles after they get kept. No sourcing is an issue, that's what we're concerned about. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and "no consensus" means just that, we didn't decide to delete or to keep, so it stays as is; you are free to re-nominate that article again so we can discuss it further. That's not a double standard, it's just the nature of these discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of conversation, but no consensus yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't intend to participate, but now that you've pinged me I want to. Congratulations.

First off, please read WP:CITEBOMB and WP:BLUDGEON. Repeated behaviour matching those described in these two essays may be considered disruptive or cast doubt on your good faith.

Secondly, I've went to the trouble of making the venerated source comparison table, which you can see below: Fermiboson (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the source tables you can see below, I !vote delete. That we may have other biographies equally deserving of deletion is irrelevant; this one is not clear cut or obvious fluff, but I still see little evidence of genuine significant coverage. I would also point out to the defending editor that if you believed the Forbes source was genuinely good enough, there would be no need to proceed to citebomb with obvious WP:NCRYPTO sources. Fermiboson (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[1]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	The article is about the subject in its entirety	✘ No
[2]		dev.ua appears to be a reliable source on cursory google search	Passing mention as co-founder of a platform which is itself mentioned in passing	✘ No
[3]		The source is a major newspaper	The article does not mention Udianskyi by name at all.	✘ No
[4]	?	WP:BLOG	~ The article dedicates one paragraph to a brief biography of the subject.	✘ No
[5]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article details a singular action done by the subject. On its own, this would not be enough, although it may be able to help strengthen the case in the presence of another GNG source.	✘ No
[6]	?	WP:BLOG, same source as 4	~	✘ No
[7]	No evidence to the contrary, and for the sake of discussion let's give the benefit of doubt.	~ No author is listed and hence it is impossible to tell if this is a blog or contributor post	The article is about the subject in its entirety.	~ Partial
[8]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article is more or less a rewriting of a press release about the subject.	✘ No
[9]	Seems to be a significant finance website with editorial control.	~ See Forbes source.	One mention in list form.	✘ No
[10]	per 7.	~ See Forbes source.	One mention in list form.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Second table because space has run out:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[11]	TSN is a major news network in Ukraine without apparent links to the subject.	Information is cited from the governmental department responsible for the licensing.	The article is about the organisation which the subject belongs to, not the subject himself.	✘ No
[12]	? It is not clear if the author is affiliated; the author has written only one article.	Considering the lack of credentials of the author and the format of the website, smells WP:BLOG.	An article about the subject.	✘ No
[13]	RBC is a major news source and there is no reason to doubt independence.		The article is about the organisation the subject belongs to and the subject is mentioned only as the co-founder of said organisation.	✘ No
[14]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	The article is about the subject.	✘ No
[15]	?	WP:NCRYPTO	~ The article is about an action taken by the subject.	✘ No
[16]		WP:SOCIALMEDIA	~ See source 15.	✘ No
[17]	The publisher appears to be an NGO concerned with foreign affairs, no clear COI present.	?	The article is about the organisations the subject belongs to, not the subject himself; and a very brief one at that.	✘ No
[18]	WP:INTERVIEW	?		✘ No
[19]	Official government announcement.		~ The subject receives a title but no detail is otherwise given. Could potentially be used in conjunction with other good sources, if those existed.	~ Partial
[20]	Ukrainian military announcement.		Article is about the vehicles donated by subject, not the subject himself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

And table 3, because it is apparently necessary for us to waste all this time:

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Fermiboson**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[21]			See source 20.	✘ No
[22]			See sources 20 and 21.	✘ No
[23]	WP:INTERVIEW	?		✘ No
[24]			~ Article describes subject receiving an apparently non-notable award.	~ Partial
[25]	Parliamentary dossier information likely submitted by subject himself.	?	Effectively an entry in a list.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete per Fermiboson's source assessment.-KH-1 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 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.