Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Verkhovskaya (2nd nomination)

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 keep. I'm rather sympathetic to the "delete on request" side, but, this isn't a marginal AFD, and we've no confirmation the subject and the editor with that name are the same. I'd welcome a new AFD if OTRS confirms identity. Courcelles 01:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Verkhovskaya[edit]

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

Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a revert war trying to blank the article. Taking a look at it, I'm not sure there is a encyclopedic need to cover this subject and in the spirit of WP:BLP I think we owe it to the subject to consider deleting it. causa sui (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete causa sui (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of this AfD, remember that AfDs are not a vote, so please try to provide a rationale for your decision. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but I thought my nomination had covered my rationale. If you think my rationale is unconvincing, I could amplify if you like. --causa sui (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Written in promotional tone and a suspiciously low number of google hits (could be due to transliteration?), but definitely asserts WP:N and there are a plenty of references in the article. Rymatz (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - asserts WP:N,.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right that the article passes WP:GNG, but it would have to be established by sources, not merely asserted. You may want to revise your comment to clarify whether you think notability is established or merely asserted. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sympathetic to the subjects of BLPs wanting their articles deleted but they need to contact OTRS. Anyaverkhovskaya (talk · contribs) could be anybody. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree 100% with Ron Ritzman. Just because someone set up an account using her name does not mean that it is her. We have no rationale as to why she supposedly wants the article deleted - simply edit warring to blank the page. Notability is asserted and there are quite a few references that appear reliable at first glance. I will reconsider if we get a verified request through OTRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am less sympathetic to the idea that biographical subjects have some sort of right to control content than some others at WP. There is nothing remotely defamatory here. THIS PIECE in Jewish Chronicle helps demonstrate that this is an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't have any right to control "their" BLPs but there's no harm in letting them have their say and if they are private persons (ie not "A list celebrities") and notability is marginal then I don't think there is a problem in taking their wishes into account in a close AFD. However, for their wishes to carry any weight then we need to be certain that they are who they say they are. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that they don't have that kind of control, but that the person asked to have it deleted isn't a good reason to keep it just to prove a point. causa sui (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it's no reason to haul something to AfD, myself... Carrite (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further: the entire rationale for this deletion isn't whether this individual is notable, but rather that this biography has been the subject of an edit war by a (now blocked) user sharing the same name as the subject, and we "owe it to them" to run the article through AfD. There is clearly nothing defamatory in the piece, that's where it should have ended — yet this ended up here anyway solely under the principle of WP:SUBJECT(???)DOESNTLIKEIT. This challenge would set a poor precedent, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There does seem to be a lot of info on the net about her, including news stories. Reliable sources should be available, and if sourced, this article would appear to be about a notable individual. As Ron Ritzman points out, we have no evidence that User:Anyaverkhovskaya is in fact the article's subject, and even if she were, her opinion should carry no more weight than that of any other editor. Yunshui (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -As Yunshui stated, there is quite a bit of information available. For example, this article Project helps Shoah survivors obtain property compensation By Lynne Kleinman, is an indication that the subject and her work are notable. I believe the AfD and the user User:Anyaverkhovskaya (unlikely the subject) could be a reaction to the recent work of the subject matter listed in the aforementioned link. I personally have worked on this article and have attempted to uphold the WP:BLP & WP:GNG. The article subject matters’ work is political/religious and this article was written to highlight the impact and importance of the subject's work and life. Instead of just attacking the content and layout, perhaps guidance would be more beneficial than merely censorship. --Jmta16 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hiller17 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I have known this person personally for the last 2 and a half years. The only correction I can add is that she does not have a patent at this time. It is a patent application and it is not granted at this time. I know that she uses this Wiki site to assist her business advertising as well. No harm in that. The true purpose of this discussion is the point of being listed as a true person and the facts herein and also the merit of being listed in an encyclopedia. Personally, looking at the references she deserves to be listed. As Jmta16 states, maybe more guidance is needed.[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.