- 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexei_Ivanenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
- Delete. The guy is just another spokesperson for terrorists (they're called "freedom fighters" or "separatists" in the West). Dissemination of what is considered an anti-Russian propaganda, I'd say. KNewman 12:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - nominator seems to be influenced by POV; "dissemination of anti-Russian propaganda" is not a valid reason for deletion under WP policy. I'm not sure, however, whether the links constitute evidence of coverage in independent sources (per WP:BIO), as most of the sites seem to be linked to the subject of the article. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, as nominated I feel that we should not give in to POV nominations... on the other side the article has a serious problem with WP:V and somebody should work on it before it is nominated for that Alf photoman 17:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Delete as violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP & WP:V. Sources proving his notability (in whatever language) are badly needed. If they can be found, and fulfill WP:BIO, I think my vote will be "Keep". It's interesting, though, that although the nomination was created in bad faith, the article might've been created in bad faith as well (as can be seen by its inclusion on the controversial Siberian wikipedia, which has many Russophobic contributors). Esn 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- keep It is perfectly understandable for people to write articles about those who share their politics, and if the article is objective and NPOV, that's how we build; there is no POV in this article To me, that does not count as bad faith in the author. If the article is marginal , the evident bad faith of the nom should induce us to feel appropriately towards attempts at suppression. DGG 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy keep no reason given for deletion ⇒ bsnowball 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as violation of WP:BLP. The nomination provides no reason(s) for deletion.
Even if everything the nom says is true, being a spokesman for terrorists and engaging in anti-Russian propganda seems to hint that the subject of the article is notable.However, the article (or at least the version I'm viewing) is quite strange. For instance, who does the "us" in the fourth and sixth sentences refer to? I would suggest notifying the author of the article, User:Messir, of WP:COI (writing "us" seems an indication of personal involvement in the issue). Also, the new additions (beyond the second sentence) are confusing. For instance, the article says "The main concept of his philosophy is quranic term "kufr", which interpreteded as ideology.", but "kufr" actually means "unbeliever", not "ideology". Another part describes the individual as an "elf-muslim" (claimed to be a self-description), with a reference to Tolkien, which I couldn't decipher. Unless this is sourced, I would say delete as a violation of WP:BLP. -- Black Falcon 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- It isn't hard to find angry Russophobic writers on the internet - that alone does not establish or even suggest notability. Currently, this article doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BIO (perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a better fit in this case). More importantly, it doesn't fulfill WP:V. Esn 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and that's why I'm leaning toward deletion of the article as it is in violation of WP:BLP. Also, I'm not insisting that the individual is indeed notable, but am just expressing my opinion that the nominator's method of nominating the article for deletion is counterproductive overall and even to his goal (to get the article deleted). -- Black Falcon 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, let me explain myself. I nominated the article for deletion because this Ivanenko character's "works" are only being published at the Kavkaz Center website, which is a terrorist media platform, run by the Chechen rebels themselves and the guys who support them. Even though I personally support the freedom of press, I don't think I can tolerate anti-Russian slander in Wikipedia (or links to such sites). But as always, majority here decides everything, even if people can't read Russian at all and have no idea what this Ivanenko is writing about. KNewman 06:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it much matters what he's writing. The question is whether he himself is notable and whether the article about him should be kept. I am of the opinion that the article should be deleted as violating WP:BLP. The statement that he works for/with Kavkaz Center is true and verified (see [1]). However, other parts of the article, such as about his "philosophy", are not verified and thus violate WP:BLP. Moreover, the subject of the articles does not seem to meet WP:N (as far as I could tell from a review of available English-language sources; there may be others in Turkish or Russian). However, your approach to the nomination was inappropriate and, I believe, the reason for most of the "keep" votes. -- Black Falcon 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Black Falcon - there were many valid grounds you could've picked to delete the article, but you picked the one that would be least persuasive to editors unfamiliar with the subject. I've changed my vote to "Delete", because the article as it is now violates a whole bunch of guidelines and it doesn't seem likely to fulfill them anytime soon. If it does, my vote will change again; I'm basing my decision strictly on whether the article fulfills wikipedia guidelines or not. Please also realize that just because a person or ideology promote slander does NOT mean that they should not be in wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral mechanism, so that if this person's views are widely denounced people can read about that within the article and make their own judgements - we have articles on subjects such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which do just that. Esn 07:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gentlemen, let me explain myself. I nominated the article for deletion because this Ivanenko character's "works" are only being published at the Kavkaz Center website, which is a terrorist media platform, run by the Chechen rebels themselves and the guys who support them. Even though I personally support the freedom of press, I don't think I can tolerate anti-Russian slander in Wikipedia (or links to such sites). But as always, majority here decides everything, even if people can't read Russian at all and have no idea what this Ivanenko is writing about. KNewman 06:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and that's why I'm leaning toward deletion of the article as it is in violation of WP:BLP. Also, I'm not insisting that the individual is indeed notable, but am just expressing my opinion that the nominator's method of nominating the article for deletion is counterproductive overall and even to his goal (to get the article deleted). -- Black Falcon 06:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't hard to find angry Russophobic writers on the internet - that alone does not establish or even suggest notability. Currently, this article doesn't seem to fulfill WP:BIO (perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a better fit in this case). More importantly, it doesn't fulfill WP:V. Esn 04:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete regardless of politics and POV issues, the article provides no sources to back up any claims per WP:BIO and a search on Google [2] (in English admittedly) implies that independent sources may not exist. If reliable sources can be provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:38, 1 March 2007 (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.