Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Mishin
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 delete. Whether or not Pravda is reliable, insufficient sources have been presented about this blogger to establish notability, as several !voters indicated. Cool3 (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanislav Mishin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not WP:Notable. No reliable sources. Pravda is far from a reliable source. Borock (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I'm not convinced Pravda is any less reliable than any American big-city newspaper, particularly these days. However, the Pravda reference establishes his existence but not necessarilty his notability, so it may be moot. Hairhorn (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ORLY? See [1]. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno, that article is not really presented as fact. You don't remember when every big-city US paper backed the Iraq war on flimsy fake evidence? Hairhorn (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He's notable enough, or what he said is, that the Boston Herald posted his blog. Pravda may print all the crap we want to hear on its front page and be run by the little big man, but to establish its non-notability as a source, don't you have to provide some evidence from reliable sources that it is not reliable? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trusting the NY Times or the BBC is wise but trusting Pravda or the National Enquirer is foolish. That's the difference. Drawn Some (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about Pravda.ru, which is what is quoted, not Pravda. I do know they're 2 different things, though. Which are you talking about? I looked online for information about Pravda.ru, and could not find much, but I did find it is used as a source in scholarly books on diverse subjects.[2] Again, how have you established that pravda is not reliable, if you are discussing the pravda used in the article. I did not think wikipedia allowed, "It's not reliable because I say so," any more than "It's reliable because I say so." Is the source reliable? Is the entire afd about this point only? If so, a requirement for evidence of unreliability is in order. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you just read Pravda? The first couple of paragraphs explain the situation and pravda.ru speaks for itself (as well as for aliens from different planets). Drawn Some (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This not how reliable sources are decided on wikipedia, so your comment remains without value or point. Ditto continuing this exchange. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you just read Pravda? The first couple of paragraphs explain the situation and pravda.ru speaks for itself (as well as for aliens from different planets). Drawn Some (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about Pravda.ru, which is what is quoted, not Pravda. I do know they're 2 different things, though. Which are you talking about? I looked online for information about Pravda.ru, and could not find much, but I did find it is used as a source in scholarly books on diverse subjects.[2] Again, how have you established that pravda is not reliable, if you are discussing the pravda used in the article. I did not think wikipedia allowed, "It's not reliable because I say so," any more than "It's reliable because I say so." Is the source reliable? Is the entire afd about this point only? If so, a requirement for evidence of unreliability is in order. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ORLY? See [1]. Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It isn't Pravda that is the question, it is the fact that all citations are opinions and therefore not reliable. Pravda may speak for itself and in the situation of claiming the subject to be a person "calimed by Pravda to have some attribute" Pravda would be a reliable source. Even absent that, Pravda may or may not be as "reliable" as CNN or "The Plain Truth" or a Marxist news letter but the point is not material. Delete in absence of even prima facia notability.
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although I have heard of this man; I cannot see that there are sufficient sources to establish his notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are no good sources about this blogger. A coatrack for a NN fringe theory.Bearian (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (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.