Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive)

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. At first glance it may seem split, but mentions in article aren't the same as the significant coverage we expect to pass WP:GNG. Being a television producer or being on a show isn't notable by itself; that isn't our criteria. Merely claiming the article passes WP:GNG is insufficient. Based on how policy views these, the consensus is to delete for a lack of meeting the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Yakovlev (television executive)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)/WP:ACTOR requirement. A minor television personality with no in-depth coverage of him, mentioned by the virtue of appearing on as a host on some shows. Bottom line, appearing on TV, even several times, is not enough to be notable, just like not every TV journalist, or journalists/writers in general, are notable. This person is just doing his regular job which involves occasional mid-level TV appearances, but he appears on TV not because he is notable, but because this is his job. PS. I nominated this for deletion 2 years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladislav Yakovlev), but nobody except article creator commented, and his main argument was WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, neither of which are valid in an AfD discussion. PPS. This is a series of 4 similar articles about non-notable (IMHO) television workers, see Junior_Eurovision_Song_Contest#Organisation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appearing on a contest operated by the European Broadcasting Union is extensive coverage and notability. Just like we have articles for Jon Ola Sand and Svante Stockselius. Sand is the current exec for Eurovision and the new exec for Junior Eurovision. Stockslius was the former exec for both contests. And both of those are seen as notable and fulfilling WP:GNG, so why is the rule different for a person who basically was in the same role? Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative option would be to merged all of the articles on BU Executive Supervisors into a list article, perhaps under the title List of Eurovision executive supervisors, and then list them in there. I could see that working just as well, and would avoid the argument of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not combine notable articles simply because guidelines like WP:ITSUSEFUL pr IDONTLIKEIT exists. Notability is based on the guidelines like WP:GNG. and he does pass that.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * I see no merit for this nom. He is a television executive and by good sourcing that is confirmed. He was worked on major Eurovision events which as seen by millions of viewers, and have merit. passes WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in BIO states that television executives are notable by default. Nobody is denying that is his career, but all the mentions of him are in passing. Being on TV, or working for one, does not make one notable. Nor is being seen by millions, he was not the subject, just an organizer of the event that people where watching. Doing one's job, even if it means being highly visible, is not a criteria of notability in itself. All I hear so far is HEISIMPORTANT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary @Piotrus:, but I did propose an alternative solution as well as a !keep rationale. So not everyone is having the stance that "HEISIMPORTANT". However, one could counter-argue that view point and say that you're portraying across a "WP:WEDONTNEEDIT" attitude, which again is something to be avoided in debates like this. Executive supervisors seem to have some significance on Wikipedia, especially when there is a plethora of bios divided by company Category:Executives by company. There is also Geoff Posner, an executive producer who has a bio. By the looks they fulfil WP:BLP1E. Which would explain why the other EBU execs all have bios on them too. This debate needs someone to come along who is fully experienced and knowledgeable in this topical subject, as it may be a case of people misinterpreting policies, which then makes us all guilty of gaming the system. Wes Mouse ^T@lk 09:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position, nothing else here suggests other substance or significant information for establishing his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still have not read anything else but IDONTLIKEIT rationales. and at least Redirect somewhere else as there's essentially nothing else apart from that one executive position,, is one of my favourite rationales here. He is an executive, the article does not claim otherwise, and the user also completely disregard his work for Eurovision events. Do I need to say more.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Producers and Teevee executives are almost never notable, especially the run of the mill types like this guy, and we've had so many AfD's of these folks that end up being deleted that editors should probably just use the Prod instead. We are not a web host or LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- TV executives are not presumed to be inherently notable, and the subject does not meet GNG to qualify for a stand-alone article otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 26 September 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.