Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uladzimir Levaneuski

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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzimir Levaneuski

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

Completing nomination for User:Трисектор, who added the AfD tag with the edit summary delete: no notability, self PR. ansh 666 01:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I can gather, he was arrested alongside his dad after organizing a bunch of protests in Belarus, and spent some days in jail. Although he has been clearly been detained from the police many times, there isn't any indication as to why he is notable. His page says that he was the chairman of a strike committee back in 2006, and that in 2014 he led some more committees. But the organizations themselves don't seem to be notable within themselves. While his father, Valery, has been recognized as a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International, Uladzimir did not gain that recognition. It is fair to say that Uladzimir does not meet the notability guidelines, as he has not had enough significant coverage to be notable enough for an article. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources in the article. Furthermore in RU wiki notability of this person already was discussed. The result of the discussion was keep.--Lomtikov (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has plenty of reliable sources. The article quality leaves something to be desired, but quality is not a reason for deletion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 4 March 2015 (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.