Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkady L. Bukh (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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady L. Bukh[edit]

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST full of descriptions of his cases. Already some of the victims have expressed their concerns that this article harasses them. Which violates WP:BLP. From previous deletion discussion it is clear that it is a COI. Created to promote the subject. An WP:SPA created this large and well formatted article in a single edit. The account was created at 07:44 and the article 07:51 on 24 November 2014. A new account can not create such large, well formatted article in just 7 minutes. It must be a WP:SOCK of any expert wikipedian. Meaninf its an Undisclosed paid editing. - Mar11 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per COVERAGE, per WP:GNG. plenty of good sources. That a SPA created the article is irrelevant as long as the article subject passes WP:GNG. This article was put through an AfD in July 2015, with No consensus result. I see nothing that points towards a Delete !vote, as the article seems to have been improved even further since then. BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 January 2017 (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.