Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uladzimir Levaneuski (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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzimir Levaneuski[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)

I am renominating this in light of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Refspam_across_many_articles which strongly indicates that the editor who created this and !voted keep at the previous AFD has a major conflict of interest. It does not appear as if WP:PROF is met, so the question is probably whether or not the political activities in Belarus are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. We could probably do with some Belarusian input on that. SmartSE (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything notability about him --Devokewater @ 14:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been mentioned in multiple reliable independent secondary sources, he has published and has some citations in Google Scholar [1], and at 34 he will probably publish more. I also would be interested in seeing Belarusian input. // Timothy :: talk 14:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar citation record [2], while nonempty if you look for his name with the proper spelling, has far too few citations to pass WP:PROF#C1, and looks even weaker after checking reveals that many of those citations are self-citations. And I don't think his former activities as organizer of a minor and ineffective protest group rise to the level of WP:NPOL; it seems to be part of the same walled garden and COI that the nomination discusses. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be part of an assiduous promotional attempt. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely insufficient citations to meet WP:NPROF, and no evidence passes any of the other criteria either. Might have more of a chance of passing WP:GNG based on the coverage, but again I'm not really convinced. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on above arguments that he does not meet NPROF. The idea that this is part of an insidious attempt to game the system (see the related COIN thread in the nom) bothers me a lot, although this is not a deletion criteria.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete nothing noteable (yet), may be just too early. --hroest 18:21, 6 August 2020 (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.