Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Strashnov

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Strashnov[edit]

[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)

Potential violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (BLP) policy: disastrous lack of reliable sources and promotional content. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP accusations are without merit: I hardly see the list of positions held to be "promotional". "disastrous lack" is due to DGAF; ruwiki has plenty of refs and the nom must be trout-slapped for lack of due diligence before nomination.- Altenmann >talk 01:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous. Trout-slapping a contributor for proposing an article that's based on one (one!) single source! I mean, even now, one month after the proposal, we still have practically nothing. Not even our slapping hopeful has proffered supporting sources here, in the English-language Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does read like a PROMO now, this [1] talks about him, I'm unsure if it's a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for my education, please explain which elements of promotion you see in the article? I see nothin that fails our guideline WP:PROMO. - Altenmann >talk 16:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Having the article in wikipedia is used to enhance search engines and search listings, which helps the individual. Higher search rankings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created by a kamikaze account that's being permanently blocked since 2014 and curated mainly by an ISP that's under a 2-year block. The promotional intent of this "article" is evident not in the language used but from that it offers: extremely trivial bio-details ("led the Russian division of Electrolux Home Appliances"), a video of our subject visiting a local office (!), etc. Typical of efforts to create notability where there's only the usual everyday stuff. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the wealth of reliable refs in ru:Страшнов, Дмитрий Евгеньевич. It's easy to run them through a translator now; many browsers even have this built-in. WP:BEFORE now says to check other wikipedias before sending an article to AfD.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is yet just another businessman, trivially and distinctly non-notable. Yet, he has an article in Wikipedia puffed up with promotional stuff, as well, e.g. a video from some routine visit some time some where. All arguments supporting inclusion have so far been variations of "he is notable in the Russian Wikipedia", "it's useful to have it", "he is important", or just plain ol' "he is notable"! Wouldn't their contributors' time be better spent if used to post up sources supporting the claim to notability?

Is this some aspiration of fame getting a kick-start through a Wikipedia bio? The work of zealous acolytes? Or, my personal vote, the work of good-faith editors seeing notability where it's absent? In any case, there is little of substance out there. Wikipedia is not a list of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of the references available about this individual would be very helpful. A handwave at other language projects is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources from TASS, RIA Novosty, Rossiskaya Gazeta and others specifically about this subject in the ru.wiki article, providing in depth and sustained coverage. Mccapra (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking articles from Wikipedias in other languages to support notability, expressly does not offer much support in AfD discussions, Mccapra. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m afraid you’ve missed the point about WP:OTHERLANGS. That essay states correctly that the mere existence of cognate articles in other language wikis does not demonstrate notability. I’m not doing that. I’m not invoking the ru.wiki article to claim anything. I’m saying that the Russian sources used in the ru.wiki article are good quality. If they were crap UGC sites, blogs or churnalism I’d vote delete, but they are top tier Russian language news sources. Nothing in the essay you pointed to suggests that we should not evaluate the sources used in another language wiki article. Mccapra (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you do not realize that simply asserting the subject is notable on the basis that the respective article in another-language Wikipedia "has sources" is the same as basing your argument on the fact that "the article exists in another-language Wikipedia"! We need the sources you, for one, assess as being of "good quality" here, in the lemma of English-language Wikipedia. That's what needs to be done. Mere declarations of notability are DOA in AfDs. -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2023 (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.