Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yauhien Anischanka

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. The consensus in this debate relating to the sourcing added to the article, is that it doesn't fulfil the requirements set out by GNG. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yauhien Anischanka[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)

Was draftified in hopes it would be improved. It was not. Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note A nominator who frequently starts AfD's stating "Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG" without any prove of WP:BEFORE; while sources are online. See for instances his AfD of this week of articles I created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Farchi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianne Lienau. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a well established historian in Belarus; stated by many sources who wrote about his death including orsha.eu. A short summary of his works see here. One example of his works as a historian see via belhistory.eu. I'm not going any further as this would be enough, and the rationale of the nominator is unclear. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article with a single obit ref. Typically an academic artcle needs two obits before it is created and the convention at Afc is three refs which are secondary. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what you don’t see in the article doesn’t exist? Updated with the refs I mentioned above. (But seeing the personal attack here below you will never change your vote) SportsOlympic (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author seems to be unwilling to do the work to source the articles they create, which per convention and consensus is the required process and has been since the get go. I would suggest that the editor is uncapable of doing it and per the remedy applied to FloridaArmy, all articles the editor creates should be submitted to draft for review and approval. Currently as it stands, all the one ref articles the editor is writing, which are often profiles, is creating an immense amount of work for other folk, not only for the people at Afc who have to review them once they have been moved after NPP review, but the months and years ahead when more work will be needed. All the editors work should go to Afc. scope_creep^Talk 14:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides of that; this is not the place to propose your opinion; please do it somewhere else. And it’s not correct: “all the one ref articles the editor is writing, which are often profiles”—>Please check the articles I created and don’t state something when just seeing a few articles. Stubs are welcome, you call improving a stub: “months and years ahead when more work will be needed”. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, why moving them all to draft while, you say it yourself, they have already all been checked one-by-one SportsOlympic (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support this editor having to create new articles through AfC. Their poorly sourced, brief articles usually fail to show any notability even when the subject is notable. The only time an effort is made to produce anything like an acceptable article is when the article is in danger of being deleted. This could be forgiven if it was a new editor creating the articles, but this is not the case here. --John B123 (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR --John B123 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, the sites linked by the article creator to support notability do not inspire confidence that the original author understands Wikipedia's policies. --hroest 21:46, 12 July 2021 (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.