Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

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 keep with suggested cleanup. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Siobhán Hoey

Siobhán Hoey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not making the Olympics confer notability? Her team finished 16th in the European trails... where's the cutoff? 20th? 50th? Irish triple jump champion yes. But triple jump is a darned obscure event, Ireland is a small country, and one editor noted "Multiple Irish triple jump champion but never jumped within 2-3 metres of standard in other countries". I'm sure she's buff and all, but where's the limit here? Herostratus 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep One could argue that triple jump, being an Olympic event since 1896, is not that obscure... and as for the notability of Ireland, well, I don't know what to say. I would say that the national champion in a notable sport, in any country regardless of size, is notable. --Canley 05:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think the triple jump is an obscure event either, and Ireland is not an insignificant country. Nevertheless there is a paucity of information here, which means that the article fails to establish notability. If it could be beefed up I'd be likely to say keep, but otherwise delete. BTLizard 09:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Canley; national champion in a reasonably notable sport seems legitimate enough. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs work, but per reasons stated above, no need to delete.Yem75 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs to be expanded but being a stub is not a reason for deletion especially when some notability can be established. To the nominator, Tiddlywinks is obscure, triple jump is not... Xarr 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ten-time national champion in an Olympic sport. The article is a pathetic sub-stub lacking all relevant biographical information, but the subject is clearly notable enough. Xtifr _tälk 13:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If anything is pathetic here, it is the level of triple jump in Ireland generally and speficically the results of Siobhán Hoey. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• I am sorry but to include her on the basis of her triple jump record is really plain silly. She to the best of my knowledge never competed in any of the following for Ireland- European championship either indoor or out, World or Olympic championship. I am not even sure that she competed in the Europa cup. The standard in the Europa cup and European indoor championship is quite low journeymen or journey women national champions normally get an outing in one or the other. There are also countless living Irish people who have won multiple track and field national titles- it is not for wikipedia to list them all. She triple jumped when the event was just introduced in senior competitions and won national titles. someone had to. Her performances compare very badly to standards in England, France, Germay or America at the time she jumped no where near the marks recorded by athletes in those countries at the time. As an aside she is not the Irish national triple jump record holder either- the long time record holder is also off the pace so to speak compared to other international athletes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong delete. Being a national champion in a sport is in itself far from notable, even in a large sport such as athletics. I'm a national champion in an athletics event, so if Canley's argument was true I would benefit from that in a way. On the other hand, our goal should be to build a high-quality encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover a set of guidelines known as WP:BIO cover this type of articles, and none of the criteria outlined there are met in this case. Punkmorten 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, forget the triple jump... as a bobsleigh team the Hoey sisters seem far more notable - there are several full articles about them in several Irish newspapers (and this is, after all, the primary criterion for notability): Cool run for Port sisters, Success for bobsleigh sisters but sponsors still giving them the slip, Sisters taking sport to the extreme, Fundraising drive to help Port.’s bobsleighing sisters. There's also The Sun in Britain, which seems to think they did qualify for Torino: You are sexski things!, as well as some scant biographical information on the CBS and Yahoo Olympic sites: CBS, Yahoo. --Canley 14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my opinion to keep based on her merits (World Cup competitor) as a bobsledder alone. Punkmorten 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. per Punkmorten and also does not meet criteria of WP:BIO User:KRBN 17:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Bobslieghers who nearly qualified for the Olympics how many other people around the world meet this criteria. It to my mind lacks notability. They have little relevance outside Ireland as Triple Jumpers but are better at bobsleigh by all accounts- but are still weak athletes by the standards that should be applied to wikipedia which is not here to include everyman and woman who every did some sport to an international or quasi international standard. still strong delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hmm, it's an encyclopedia, so I would say it probably is in order to record everyone who has excelled at national level in every recognised sport. Your mileage may vary, however I see no reason to delete articles for the sake of it, which is what this would seem to amount to. --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would say the exact opposite - for the same reason: An encyclopedia, Wikipedia should not and does not cover everything. The fact that Hoey hardly excelled in triple jump (look at her results) is another discussion. Anyway, the bobsleigh achievements on the other hand seem good enough to merit inclusion. Punkmorten 18:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. -- Canley 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article isn't a deletion candidate. Siobhan and Aoife Hoey made national news with their Olympic attempts. The Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent are two out of the three principal newspapers of Ireland. And that's before you consider that we're talking about a six-time national athletics champion. --Tony Sidaway 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Still a strong delete. The Triple Jump point has surely been addressed at this point. Neither of the two ladies has any releveance at all outside of Ireland as Triple Jumpers. The fact that they made national headlines for a short period in Ireland when doing another sport in and itself does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. There is an inference here that they should be included because they are plucky Irish girls competing in a sport not normally associated with that country and they nearly made the Olympics. That is an extremely weak argument for inclusion. They got some publicity as at the time it was a good colour story. But the reality is they are unknown in Ireland. Bad Triple Jumpers, better but not notable bob sleighers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There's a reason the primary criterion for notability is "multiple, non-trivial secondary sources" – whilst I'm sure many who participate in the AfD process would love to have a manual for biographies, and sportspersons in particular, which spelt out what was "notable" in black-and-white, this will never happen: Wikipedians would never satisfactorily agree on the thousands of arbitrary limits and rules required. The Hoey sisters meet the primary notability criterion, with multiple non-trivial references in Irish and UK media and sources over five years – whether this is due to their athletic achievements (which the press seem to have a fairly high opinion of) or because they're "plucky Irish girls" aiming for Olympic glory is irrelevant. You appear to be arguing that it is a bad precedent to include apparently lacklustre athletes, I would argue that it is a far more dangerous precedent to discard the primary notability criterion and instead rely on subjective opinions or "gut feelings" of athletic prowess. --Canley 00:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Still a strong delete. They lack notability. The two are absolutely unheard of in the UK- do not accept there were multiple non trivial references there- they made some press for colour reasons whilst Olympic winter sports were in peoples minds. I travel between the two countries. If you want to put it in those terms they really are lacklustre athletes. Utterly irrelevant as Triple Jumpers and no relevance in winter sports. It is a dangerous precedent to keep these ladies here. Being Irish claiming to have no access to funds and nearly doing something seems to allow you to have these girls punch above their weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs).— 84.112.142.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Well, you certainly seem to have a strong opinion on what is and isn't notable in Irish athletics and sport (see Sharon Foley). Might I suggest you sign up for a user name, so that you can suggest changes to the notability criteria on the relevant discussion page? Please also read up on notability guidelines, in particular "Notability is not subjective". --Canley 03:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Attacking this person because they haven't signed up to an account is changing the goal posts. I have just googled Siobhan Hoey. As a track and field athlete she seems to have a long jump best of 6.02m and a triple jump best of around 12.38m. The Olympic standard for 2008 in each event is 6.72m and 14.2 m respectively. Therefore her p.b is 70cm shy in one case and 1.8m shy in the other. This discrepency strikes me as indicating an athlete who shouldn't be on wikipedia. The marks just referred to are the minimum required to get to the Olympics- to progress it would be normal to exceed what is asked of you in qualifying once you get there. I know little about the bob sleigh but I doubt that someone so average in one event suddenly becomes an Olympic standard athlete when they change to winter sports. And the fact is she didn't qualify in that either. Taking her argument at its height its basically she should be here because she came 16th in olympic qualifying when 15 were to go. She still missed it and we have no objective information on the difference between 15th and 16th place. The Irish Sports Council guy is spinning the story. Unless more bona fide objective information is given she really doesn't deserve to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.154.56 (talk • contribs).— 213.202.154.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I'm not attacking them at all, and I'm very sorry if it comes across that way. They are of course welcome to continue to post and edit anonymously (as are you), there's nothing wrong with that at all. I just think that if one is going to issue dire warnings of dangerous inclusion precedents on AfD and talk pages, then one tends to have a little more credibility if one has a user account and signs their posts. Whatever... the standards the two of you are drawing are subjective and in opposition to Wikipedia's primary notability policy, that's all I'm saying. --Canley 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Objectively one can say she jumped certain distances in the long jump and triple jump, that are quite average, and did not qualify for either the 2002 or 2006 winter Olympics. In track and field her performances were 10-13% shy of the present Olympic 'A' standards. A man at the same standard who ran the 1500 metres would be running 4 minutes 15 seconds or so instead of the required time of around 3 minutes 37 seconds. Someone of that calibre evidently lacks notability and shouldn't get on wikipedia because they missed qualifying for the Olympics in winter sports also.

She is also not well known- I have just googled her again and 26 references came up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs). — 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• OK, so is Olympic qualification your only standard for notability? Where do you stand on Eddie 'the Eagle' Edwards, who is widely noted as a terrible ski jumper, but qualified for the British Olympic team as the only applicant? How about the Jamaican Bobsled Team, also the only applicant, but notable as plucky lads giving it a go? How about a football player who plays in the FIFA World Cup, but doesn't qualify for the Olympic soccer team? Do you agree we should delete athletes who no longer meet your arbitrary "Olympic standard", but once were the best in the world in their time? As I keep saying, they meet the notability standard easily, full stop. Notability does not equal athletic prowess, or Google hits. --Canley 07:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between Hoey and Edwards the latter qualified for an Olympics as did the Jamaican team. Edwards was also extremely well known in the UK for some time in the late 1980s and there was a movie made about the Jamaican team. You keep deciding without any basis in fact that I am being arbitrary and subjective. I am not factually Hoey did not qualify for the Olympics either at track and field or winter sports. In the former situation she compted in any event that women had not done before. Whilst Triple Jump has been around for men since 1896 it was only introduced for women in the early 1990s. The standard in Irish athletics varies from year to year and event to event. Someone has to win the national championship each year. Jumping 12.4 metres or thereabouts really does not merit further comment. There are 25 perhaps more unmemorable Irish athletes who have won 5-10-15 multiple national titles because they were competing in a small country at a time when the standard of competition was low and have little relevance for an encylopedia like wikipedia. Hoey is one of them. On its own it is also irrelevant to be told Hoey finished 16th when 15 qualified for the Olympics bob sleigh. She could have been 16th by the proverbial mile. We just don't know from the information given. The google rating is relevant in one way- it indicates some validity to the statement that was made earlier that she is unknown. Google hits on Siobhan Hoey 26, Eddie Edwards 80,000, Jamaican team 3,00/, Cool runnings 1/2 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.149.105 (talk • contribs).— 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I see that Siobhan Hoey did not win a medal in the America's cup event her sister and another women are said to have done. I tried to find these results online and can't. Does anyone have a link to this bronze medal win other than a provincial Irish newspaper. Other results for the Hoey's show them coming 17th/19 teams and 22/23 teams etc so this entry seems most odd. Very strong delete on track and field credentials. Doubtfull for inclusion as a bob sleighter until more information given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs).— 213.190.141.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

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 keep. WjBscribe 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lasse Gjertsen

Lasse Gjertsen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Stub on a Norwegian You-tube celebrity, previously deleted via AFD, and protected due to recreations. The nominator at deletion review intends to replace the stub with a translation of the article at the Norwegian Wikipedia.[4]. That article has several references, most of which appear to be in Norwegian. If there is a relevant Norwegian Wikiproject or deletion sorting noticeboard, could someone notify them, as this discussion will be better if folks that can evaluate the sources show up. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. I also notified the relevant WikiProject. GRBerry 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of sources to demonstrate notability, just needs proper translation and expansion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are probably 3-4 or more sources that meet WP:ATT of semi-substantial coverage, that normally pass WP:BIO. [5] [6] [7] the most obvious ones. MURGH ^disc. 02:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Hogne 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Google News Archive search turns up results in five languages. The WSJ profile is enough by itself for me. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 move to Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Soldier's House

• Delete Nonstandard Term
  • Personal research (i.e. Asking a relative who fought in WW2) seems to indicate that the Term "Soldatenhäuser" was never in use in Germany for institutions as described in the article.
  • Google only points to WP clones for either "German Soldier's House" or "Deutsches Soldatenhaus".
  • Yad Vashem's database does not know any such institutions.
  • References point to literature that is at least controversial in matters of historic correctness.

--Hohenberg 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete as I'm willing to accept the sources but I'm not sure this is a notable name (at least, it isn't recorded widely). It is well known that the Wehrmacht was obsessed with STDs and operated its own brothel system but in France apparently they usually took over existing brothels, checked the women for disease, and then made them exclusively for the troops. That doesn't jibe with this story. They may have been part of this system, but better we have a full article on the cooptation of prostitution than this stub. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Vote changed to Keep, but please move to a more appropriate name such as Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany. This wants to be a general article but it has the name of a small aspect of the thing. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep For background, see The House of Dolls. However, though this name has been used, I do not think it necessarily was the standard name; I agree there should be a stronger article on the more general subject, but I think this is a suitable start. Hohenberg, what does your personal source indicate was the name used? DGG

The House of Dolls is literature, not a source which encyclopaedic articles should be based on... --Hohenberg 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete an anti-German attack article, solely to slander German WWII veterans. incredibly POV and is absolutely unreferenceable, this seems to be made up.--Jadger 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - the article could do with more sources and ATM I can't dig out more. I wrote it as a stub and stub it is, but it definitely is an encyclopaedic material. As to specific arguments listed above: original research is not the best way to confirm or deny anything in WP; Yad Vashem might not have anything about it since it doesn't seem related to the Holocaust; references are references, like them or not. Do we have any references disputing the ones we have? If not, the claim that such a thing did not exist would have to be proven first. Finally, as to Jadger's arguments - well, not every Nazi WWII crime was committed to slander Germans after WWII. The Nazis did not kill millions of people and rob millions of others to make them more prone to anti-German sentiments. And, contrary to what Jadger states, there are at least two sources cited in the article and two additional at the talk page. If four sources make an article "unreferenceable", then how many would do? //Halibutt 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• On a second thought - I'd change my vote to strong keep. So far we have four sources, more will follow. That's more than enough for a tiny stub. //Halibutt

if you will look on the talk page, you will notice that those "references" are highly doubtful. --Jadger 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

if you will look at the article, you notice that I added plenty more. //Halibutt 10:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

the two that are unreliable still are the only ones that back up the controversial points that are under contention. --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Not any more. //Halibutt

• Keep per Halibutt but also rename per latest Dhartung argument.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I started a rename discussion at the talk page, feel free to join it. //Halibutt

• Keep and rename. Organized (and sometimes forced) prostitution for German soldiers and Nazis seems to be a real phenomenon. --Ioannes Pragensis 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to no opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

where do you get this idea from? this is the only article on wikipedia that states such a thing, and the cited books in question are more questionable than David Irving's work --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A good question. I have no sources available here and it is possible that it were only rumors/half-truths. Nevertheless the question of war prostitution deserves an article, of course a well sourced article, possibily stating that there were nothing like this. I am only not sure whether to keep this article and rewrite it or to start from scratch. Therefore neutral vote. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Jadger is wrong. There is a plethora of sources now and not only the two Jadger mentioned. //Halibutt

then why have none been cited? there are new citations added, but they do not cite anything on the supposed German soldier's houses, but cite things mentioned in this article that link to the relevant article to those. --Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The documentary (cited) even uses the name (or in fact uses two names: Deutsches Soldatenhaus and Deutsches Soldatenheim). //Halibutt 09:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

that is highly doubtful, and please move this to the discussion page as I have done.--Jadger 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As it is written and "titled", it is nonsense. Dr. Dan 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable topic, not unlike comfort women. Questions about references should be resolved on talk. Appleseed (Talk) 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

this isn't merely questions about references, it is questioning whether it actually existed or not.--Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We have plenty of references that the phomenena was widespread, the only issue is what is the best name for it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly rename: Several references look trustworthy (e.g. Instytut Pamieci Narodowej and german sources). Name looks like an off-the-cuff translation, though. Barring better ideas in english, the raw German term is much preferable. Deuar 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

you do realise the Instytut Pamieci Narodowej is often criticized as a political weapon used in modern Polish political witch-hunts?--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the best name would be the German term. It makes it clear that it was the Germans who gave it that innocuous-sounding name. DGG 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no standard German term, there is no evidence that they actually existed in as much organization is claimed in the article.--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly rename: Looks notable and reasonably well-referenced. The title could be problematic, though. Biruitorul 16:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.--Wizardman 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Independent School, Inc.

The Independent School, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable, not referenced. The creator removed prod but didn't expand or improve the article in a week since then.  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominee's statement, and so says Google, twice. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Not referenced. SpookyPig 21:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, all schools are considered notable. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even 'saturday schools'? I don't think so - can you point me to the relevant guideline?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a source for that guideline? Vegaswikian 02:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article makes no attempt to assert notability and is totally unreferenced. Vegaswikian 02:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 DELETED as an attack page and highly speculative original research, all wrapped up in one. I've disregarded the nose count on this one, due to the off-wiki vote stumping. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet troll squads

Internet troll squads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research devised from two tangentially related articles. Essentially an attack page against Putin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

<Lengthy comment moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like a hoax to me, but I can't read Russian either, so the sources really mean nothing to me. If its not a joke, perhaps Merge with Troll (Internet)Gelston 08:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a conspiracy theory to me. -- Pious7 13:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The sources are in english Whoops, confused this with a different russian language article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Delete - Original research.--Tom 17:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Except for being hoax, original research, and the term "troll squads" being coined by Biophys - the author of this article, this article was created by him in order to defame and slander me and Alex Bakharev. Please see the evidence here "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" Vlad fedorov 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (I am creator of this article). First, this is obviously not OR, which is claimed as the reason for deletion. Everything is taken from the sources. Article is based on a single reliable source at least four reliable sources now (see my reply below - "Thank you"), which is perfectly consitent with Wikipedia policies. Second, English translation of main source has been provided in the article. See: [8]. So, could you please read this translation, and then decide if the subject is a "hoax" and notable. As explained on talk page, this is a reliable source. Third, this article say nothing personal about Putin except that FSB workers admire him (which is probably true). So, this is not attack against Putin. Finally, this article has not been created to accuse Wikipedia editors. I planned to create it long time ago, as anyone can see looking at my personal page User:Biophys#Links_and_notes and Talk:Persecution_of_political_bloggers#English_translation_of_Russian_article_about_.22Internet_troll_squads.22 where the same source has been used. Further, I have never made any personal accusations of that kind. If someone else did, this is not my problem. The subject about "FSB trolls in Wikipedia" was opened by an anonymous user in talk page FSB, so I have mostly reacted on that. I also did not want people to discuss accusations not related to me at my talk page. Biophys 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - POV/OR. FCYTravis 18:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources cited as is required. Probable OR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - first of all, if this article was alone, it would probably only just be a weak delete; while there is one source provided, it does not back up any claim this this is either a notable or even realistic problem. Furthermore, this article appears to be some kind of personal vendetta the creator has against another Wikipedian - in my books, that's WP:POINT. --Haemo 06:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's surely a conspiracy theory. ellol 11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply.. If it's surely a conspiracy theory, then you must have some proof that it is right? CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. I feel that while it is a good article, it needs more sources to cite for it to be as reliable as people want.CPTGbr 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep I take back my delete vote, and now vote keep, as the article cites many more sources, and has been cleaned up greatly since creation. CPTGbr 21:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete. OR, WP:POINT, POV almost by definition. --Irpen 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. The phenomena is real, but the name seems to be ORish. The new name should be Interned disinformation by Russian intelligence agencies or such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Piotrus (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
• Speedy Delete, WP:CSD G10, WP:BLP. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Rename and Source //Halibutt 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The best solution in these circumstances is to expand the article and add sources. Appleseed (Talk) 02:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the case of disinformation by InoSMI shown in the bottom of the article, I can't help but notice the abundance of impersonation and disinformation attacks against Russian opposition figures. See the statement by Yevgenia Albats who discovered an article published under her name [9], computer translation. The Troll (Internet) article did not mention PhD researchers in its references. I believe the troll squads article is not an original research because it summarizes the referenced exhibits and analysis. If the article's neutrality is disputed, counter-arguments should be added to the article instead of deleting it. ilgiz 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you present the evidence in support of your statements and in support of your linking of these allegations with specifically internet troll squads. Do you have the evidence that Yevgenia Albats was harassed exactly by internet troll squads and why do you have such infromation? Vlad fedorov 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this original research. Let me politely ask our Polish friends to leave Russia-articles to the responsibility of Russian editors. I presume the latter know more about Russia than the former. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

<Lengthy discussion moved to talk preserving order> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOR. >Radiant< 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as WP:OR and possible attack page. We have enough "conspiracy" pages to deal with already, let's not repeat the same mistakes. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<Another lengthy discussion moved to talk. Mr.Biophys, you won't promote your cause by abusing the voting section guidelines> Ukrained 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nominator, Pious7, NYC JD and everybody else. --Pan Gerwazy 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Piotrus, but widen the scope and develop to WP standards. Not hoax, reflects real phenomena and may be referred to some external links. No exceptional concentration on Russia of course. Ukrained 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you! Thank you all for your participation and discussion of my article. This helped to improve it a lot. It was nominated for deletion as WP:OR. Now it is not OR and based on multiple sources. This is obvious from the current list of references. No one of this discussion participants challenged the reliability of any specific references on any reasonable grounds. Most of you criticized the title. Great. Then let's rename it as "Internet teams of Russian state security services" (almost as suggested by Pyotrus). I have made the corresponding changes in the text, but I do not want to move the article during AfD discussion. If you disagree with such title, let's mark this article as WP:RM and discuss a better title (wrong title can not be a reason for deletion). Finally, the AfD nominator believed that the article is "an attack page against Putin". Obviously, it is not, since there is only one mention of Putin in this article as a third party.Biophys 14:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possibly OR.--Aldux 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I received an unsolicited e-mail apparently from Ukrained, asking me to participate in this. I'm not sure if he only sent this request to me, or to many people. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclusively to you Mr. Quadell :). By the way, you'd better write nothing if you "don't know": pelase don't litter voting with hardly-relevant comments. Thanks, Ukrained 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a note that the vote might be affected by behind the scenes canvassing is highly relevant both for the vote and for the ethics of some involved. --Irpen 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Only if one can prove this. BTW, remember that this is not a referendum, what counts here is argumentation rather than number of votes. Colchicum 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you saying there is no proof of canvassing? --Irpen 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep doesn't seem to be OR, well known facts --Monk 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep LUCPOL 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Very known phenomena in Russian Internet. See also article in Russian Wikipedia ru:Веб-бригады. --Yakudza 23:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per WP:POINT and WP:OR. --Kuban Cossack 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article lists several trustworthy sources that describe an Internet phenomenon. Andrew Alexander 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is similar to Censorship in China regarding what the government could do.. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 06:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment is anyone able to translate the foreign language sources? - Denny 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and lock, this is a ridiculous attack piece. If it by some chance isn't an outright hoax, there has to be some better name it can hold and it will need rewritten from the ground up regardless. --tjstrf talk 07:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anatoly Kudryavitsky

Anatoly Kudryavitsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article. I get 358 Google hits for the name. The most salient claims to notability seem to be the awards but I am unable to confirm them from reliable third party sources (3 Google hits for "Robert Graves poetry award", 1 Google hit for "Edgeworth Prize for poetry"). No hits at Amazon.com for "Kudryavitsky", Amazon.co.uk has an entry for A Night in the Nabokov Hotel with a publication date this month and a sales rank of 1,036,009. Haukur 08:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Valrith 20:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. On ozon.ru (main Russian online bookseller) there are 24 books related to him http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/258458/?type=305#305 In most of the books he is a translator (he translated a lot from W. Somerset Maugham, G. K. Chesterton, etc). There also a few of his original short stories in anthologies but no solo books he authored. I think it is bellow the level of WP:BIO Alex Bakharev 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Interesting. Thank you. Haukur 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep:My dear Mr Bakharev, the author has published every book mentioned in the biog. To state the opposite is sheer ignorance, or even worse. There's no place here for uneducated guesses, like yours. I've checked and double checked all the sourses and added a couple. All in all, the author published seven collections of his Russian poems with reputable Russian publishers; three of them with the Third Wave Books, the publisher of Joseph Brodsky. His English collection was brought out by the Kildare-based Goldsmith Press, who published Patrick Kavanagh, among the others. I am beginning to think that you're no expert in Russian literature, Mr Bakharev. Not yet. Generally, I am terrified by the prospect of authors being judged by people who know little about literature and seldom read books. Counting Google hits seems more important to some folks. If only they could count a wee bit better...User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not notable enough. In addition, this seems to be a case where the person in question has written his own WP:Bio. sample and another sample. --Camptown 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article under consideration was written by one of the author's Irish publishers. The article you mention [10] was written by Philip Casey, the well-known Irish playwright and poet, who is also the webmaster of www.irishwriters-online.com.User:Dreamcatcher9 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - He doesn't seem very notable. Peace, ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • • I guess you can cast a !vote only once Alex Bakharev 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changed to Very weak keep - there are published books, some are with reputable publishers. See no harm in keeping the article Alex Bakharev 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Author seems to be notable.Biophys 03:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.Vlad fedorov 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Has an entry in Russian wiki - [11]. Catchpole 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--Sefringle 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Author is notable in two countries, Russia and Ireland. Can we say that about many writers represented here?--WickedPetya 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: user's fifth edit, the first outside his own userpage Alex Bakharev 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I thought the rule was not to attack newbies Alex. Yes, I am only starting here but have a look at my edits in a few months' time!WickedPetya 00:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Don't see the reason why it shouldn't be here Garcia-Fons 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitry Puchkov

Dmitry Puchkov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't meet the notability requirement for biographies (WP:BIO). All references are to Russian web sites. If anything, it should be on the Russian Wikipedia. Has anyone who doesn't speak Russian ever heard of Dmitry Puchkov? Faustus 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Are you saying that only Russian-speakers should know about these things? Is it not the purpose of Wikipedia to inform people of things they may not know? Chronolegion 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't phrase the reasons clearly. The main problem with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements specified in WP:BIO. The Russian references comment's purpose is to demonstrate this. Faustus 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, translator that goofes up, without secondary non-trivial sources (at least as far as my three words of Russian can establish), thereby failing WP:N and WP:A Alf^Photoman 13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per sources found by Tikiwont. Alf^Photoman 16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've added two English sources. --Tikiwont 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  08:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the guy is reasonobly notable Alex Bakharev 09:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - he is very popular, and not only in Russia. I saw his books and films in London/Toronto/Frakfurt. I easily could compare him to Michael Moore or Mel Brooks by notability. - Vald 11:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep if some of these translations could be identified and cited. The articles seems to have a problem with NPOV, but there will be time for that when it is kept. DGG 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you, please, elaborate on "identified and cited"? Chronolegion 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments made above. RFerreira 03:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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.