Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uładzimir Katkoŭski

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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (vent) @ 21:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uładzimir Katkoŭski[edit]

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

With all due respect to this now-deceased collegue of ours, what makes him notable? I am afraid this entry fails our policies (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a memorial and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Ego Hunter (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are references in the article that say that he is a pioneer of Internet usage in the Belarusian language, and that makes him notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, inadequate sourcing, and per WP:ANYBIO:
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
The award is not well known, he was recognized for his blogging, and the other language articles are useless AFA sourcing. Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Amire80. Eddymason is also completely correct the article's currently single source is totally insufficient. I don't know if other sources exist and it seems like we're going to need to have some input from Belarusian speakers to answer that question. Once that input appears, ping me and I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote.

Until then, I'm going to give this article and its authors the benefit of the doubt. In large part, I do because this nomination was made by an acknowledged WP:SOCK WP:SPA created to nominate biographies of Wikipedians and Wikimedians for deletion. I've detailed some reasons for concern on the nominator's talk page and, after their pattern of editing was recognized, the nominator has defended their campaign and use of a WP:SOCK on their user page. So far, every closed AfDs by this nom have been decisions to keep and several have trivially uncovered reliable sources, major awards, etc. Because I've seen no evidence that this nominator is following WP:BEFORE, this smells me to like WP:POINTy behavior.

~~Bottom line, this AFD is premature and this this article should have been tagged with {{notability}} or similar before it was brought here.~~ —mako ๛ 01:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing to see Mako stoop to casting aspersions on the nominator, instead of addressing the valid points in the nomination. Wikipedians are free to make controversial edits, such as these nominations, using a sock, this is a legitimate case for using a sock. Another example would be to add material to a pornstar bio, or adding material to a bio of a criminal who may soon be freed. Simply because Mr Ego Hunter's other nominations have failed does not mean that this one is not valid, these are considered on a case by case basis, and this case is especially tragic, which makes Hill's arguing for the article even more ghoulish, calling the AFD "premature". From where I stand the nomination is long overdue. I see that I've omitted a rationale above, I will add it now... thanks a lot, Mako. >:( Eddymason (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update — Eddymason pointed out on his talk page that the article has been tagged with {{refimprove}} since 2011 so I've removed my claim about the AfD being premature. Apologies about that.

I also want to clarify that that I didn't intend to imply either that the nominator's use of a sock was illegitimate. Good faith/bad faith aside, I do think the nominators behavior is WP:POINTy and previous noms have revealed little evidence of WP:BEFORE. That's not meant as an ad-hominem argument for keeping (mine is only a weak keep!) but rather a description for why we might give the article it the benefit of the doubt. I'm sorry that this wasn't communicated clearly. I'm keeping my !vote the same for now. —mako ๛ 04:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:09, 15 December 2014 (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.