Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevhen Buket

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. ✗plicit 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Buket

[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)

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The main reason for my vote is that the subject is one of the most influential figures in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. He used to be the head of the Ukrainian chapter of Wikimedia. In my opinion it is not fair to write about the people who rule the project. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable published sources about his role with Wikimedia Ukraine, then it's possible that he meets WP:GNG, but I've not seen evidence of that. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, a person's involvement in the Wikimedia Foundation is not necessarily a reason to avoid having an article about them in and of itself — but it is a reason why we need to be especially careful to rely on reliable third party sourcing rather than unsourced or poorly sourced insider information. But the sourcing here isn't adequate, and depends too much on primary sources that aren't support for notability and/or simply using his own writing as circular metaverification of its own existence, which is not how you make a person notable. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write something better than this using more reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2021 (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.