Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadim Loskutov

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. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Loskutov

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

Per this OTRS request, the subject of the article wishes for it to be deleted. NW (Talk) 18:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not a BLP violation nor unsourced (assuming good faith on Russian sources), I see no reason to delete unless it's policy now to deleted at the subject's request. – ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody with OTRS access summarize the reasons the subject specifies for requesting deletion? Is the article claimed to be inaccurate? JulesH (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a courtesy to the requester. It's not vital to the encyclopaedia that we keep this article if it's making its subject unhappy. Basically my view is that if his name wouldn't appear in a paper encyclopaedia then the subject's wish for deletion should prevail.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with S Marshall. if they want it gone, lets delete it. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability and notability, so there's no need to worry about the controversial issue of whether the subject's wishes should be followed. None of the web pages referenced in the article even mentions the subject - the first is a dead link, the second is about somebody else entirely and the last two are just links to the home pages of sites rather than to specific articles. I would also note that they would not qualify as independent sources even if they mentioned the subject, as they are the sites of organisations for which he has worked. I've tried looking for sources in both the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets but haven't been able to find anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per subject's request and Phil Bridger's summary showing that is not notable enough to ignore the request (or even notable at all, really)/ Fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:22, 21 May 2010 (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.