The page in question is of a notable subject as per Wikipedia policy.From my studying of the AFD the editors who participated in the AFD did not do a proper scrutiny of the reliable sources that clearly established the notability of the subject as per WP:RS.I would like to request an undelete so that any other editor including me are given an opportunity to reason with the other editors why the article should be on Wikipedia. While at it, the necessary improvements shall be made to the article if needed. If after that the article still fails WP:GNG or WP:BIO then the process of deletion can follow afterwards. Thanks you in anticipation. Aha... (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much simpler to post your sources. If there are any good you don't need to reason with anyone. SpartazHumbug! 19:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseOverturn — It seems like the discussion was closed without wider input from editors across Wikipedia. Sources, such as Entrepreneur and Inc provide in depth coverage of Gorny. These sources are major publications and cannot simply be tossed aside. Other works, such as Business Journal do the same.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Renzoy16: Even though you've put yourself down as "endorse" it doesn't sound like you endorse the close and actually seem to argue to "overturn" the closure. See WP:DELREVD about participation at DRV. Mkdwtalk 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I was on my mobile device and was in a hurry. :) --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 01:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It probably would have been helpful if Kwisha had read WP:DRVPURPOSE at the top. The editor is essentially saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the way the argument points or the consensus reached in the discussion which is not the purpose of WP:DRV. No new evidence has been brought up, the consensus pointed to nothing even remotely other than "delete", and there were no procedural errors. Mkdwtalk 23:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse by default, requestor has not presented evidence other than simple disagreement with the close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The subject of the article is indeed notable since there is in depth coverage on Bloomberg as seen here. Additionally, azcentral.com another reliable source has coverage about Tomas Gorny as seen here and high beam reasearch has an aggregation of newspaper articles covering Tomas Gorny. These are not just references but reliable references that indeed establish notability. These sources should have been considered at AFD. Aha... (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination already counts as your !vote. Mkdwtalk 02:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Outcome of the AFD was clear, and accurately assessed. OP should simply write an appropriately sourced, guideline-compliant article in lieu of arguing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Obviously correct reading of consensus in this case, and the !votes are well grounded in policy.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clear consensus to delete, firmly based in policy, and discussion closed properly. Sources identified here in this discussion in no way establish notability or suggest the AfD outcome is unsafe. Thparkth (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Mkdw's comment above: clear consensus, no errors by closer, no new evidence of notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ramil Garifullin – No consensus to overturn deletion. Opinions are divided between endorse and overturn/relist. Under these circumstances, I could relist, but I do not do so because (a) that was discussed in the review but without gaining consensus, (b) it's already been relisted once, and (c) the wall of text gives me a headache that I don't wish on anybody else. As usual, this can be recreated if the AfD issues are addressed, i.e., as a neutral stub that clearly shows notability. – Sandstein 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Formal majority of !votes was without rationale arguments. One with incorrect statements, and two not arguemented ("I agree").
Akim Dubrow`s arguements are wrong if consider other language sources
So deletion was unclear and very formal--Rad8 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination and followup commenters touched on the lack of availability of reliable references. The only other input to the discussion was a tremendous wall of text that touched on everything from Google hits to some TV appearances, but didn't actually explain how any of this would contribute toward notability, and didn't really mention any references about the individual. Admittedly, the long wall-of-text style did make that argument very hard to parse, but I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised. SeraphimbladeTalk to me 17:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the consensus. Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The only pertinent argument for deletion was that the subject was not notable - the "he is dishonest" argument doesn't carry any weight in a deletion discussion. Numerically the "he is not notable" argument had the most support.
However, the wall of text !vote, while very difficult to follow, did include a number of links to what appear (via machine translation) to be credible evidence of notability in apparently reliable sources. Here are a few that I found somewhat useable:
So on the one hand we have a few weak delete !votes with "notability" being the only concern, and on the other hand we have multiple plausible sources describing the subject as "renowned" and "famous".
Given my difficulties in assessing the reliability of those sources, I wouldn't go as far as to say "overturn to keep" but I do consider that in terms of argument from policy, "keep" actually had the stronger case. It would have been more reasonable to close this as "no consensus", or perhaps even better relist it and solicit input from Russian-speaking editors.
Overturn and relist, preferably with that useless wall of text hatted. Poorly argued discussion of a BLP where the rationale for deletion (subject is a notorious fraud) may well indicate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- A sensible nomination and two well-argued delete votes, against one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep sounds like rough consensus to delete to me. ReykYO! 15:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look like enough to form the basis for a WP:N claim. The nom and one supporting !vote to delete aren't enough to overcome that. Overturn to NC, no objection to a relistHobit (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text, which is never a good way to "win" an AFD. Strength of argument is analysed by the closer rather than gross word count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the single-purpose account, no one but the closing admin reviewed the commentary and sources provided by Irek Minnullin. The AfD closer wrote above, "I didn't see anything in it that substantially addressed the issues raised." But since Thparkth has explained how Irek Minnullin's sources provide credible evidence of notability and since no one in the AfD discussed Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments, the AfD should be relisted for further discussion.
I recommend relisting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin (2nd nomination) and not reopening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramil Garifullin so that Irek Minnullin's sources and arguments remain visible but won't prejudice editors to support deletion. See for example Stifle's comment: "Walls of text will tend to lower rather than increase the chance of comments being taken into consideration." And Reyk's comment about "one immense rambling incoherent wall-of-text keep". And Andrew Lenahan's comment: "this looks like a debate where one side attempted to drown out the other with an enormous rambling wall of text".
