Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleb Tsipursky

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. ansh 666 04:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gleb Tsipursky[edit]

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

This certainly seems right on the edge, however, I believe this fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. While a BEFORE search of Google News finds voluminous hits to Tsipursky, they all come in the form of bylines and boilerplate bios after a bylined article; sources, in other words, that are not WP:INDEPENDENT and don't help us reliably establish any biographical information about him other than the fact he is a living person and prolific essayist. As of now we don't even have enough information on Tsipursky to establish a date of birth. Chetsford (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Located sources for date and place of birth; added references to coverage in independent news sources. Branchc (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Located sources for date and place of birth" Facebook, you mean? Chetsford (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for date of birth - it seems like in this case it meets the guidelines as a reliable source since it's an official page of the subject. Branchc (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when we are reduced to using facebook to source anything that is a strong indication the person is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this guideline may need to be reconsidered:

"As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)"

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Facebook,_Myspace) Branchc (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take a shot at improving this article before a decision is made. I think there is more newsworthy information that has not been added. I agree that it is difficult to find biographical information but I feet he is notable due to recent political activity with the Pro Truth Pledge. I think better sources can be found for the material on the page and it can be expanded somewhat. I'm a fairly minor person here without a ton of edits so forgive me if this is not how this is done.--Slroney (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to meet the extensive coverage requirement based on my reading of the requirement and his media appearances. While the article certainly fails WP:NACADEMIC I disagree that it fails WP:GNG.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to WP:INDEPENDENT. Having one's byline appear on a large number of articles one wrote is usually not considered "extensive coverage." Chetsford (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely does not meet WP:BIO and based on google scholar does not meet WP:PROF. Signs point to undisclosed paid editing. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to say anything, however, I did find it unusual that the four editors who have opined to keep, or commented on the AfD Talk page, each have less 140 total edits and have all also decided to make this the first AfD in their editing history on which they chose to comment. Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is well known in other communities for using "paid contractors" hired from upwork to promote himself, so undisclosed paid editing seems very likely. Coverage by him is not independent coverages "about" him so failsWP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. AlasdairEdits (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suspect a touch of autobiography as well - User:Gleb Tsipursky uploaded the headshot at commons more than once Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:02, 20 April 2018 (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.