Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Yurgens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Yurgens

Delete This is an NN Vice-President of an NN Russian employer-side labor union. Here's his bio [1], which indicates that he had been a minor government official in the trade ministries, and worked in quasi-gov't organizations. Apparently he's been interviewed by the BBC [2] and mentioned in Business Week [3] on Russian industry issues. While that's terrific, that doesn't make him notable. He was not the subject of the coverage, and he's not a significant player by any means in Russian industry. For those who can read Russian, here's the largely Russian, largely useless website of his employer [4], on which he is apparently not mentioned. My thanks to User:Monicasdude, who contested prod here, found some of these links, and who makes my Wikilife interesting. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Crz's perspicacious nom (which properly concludes that, though he is mentioned in the articles that Mdude nobly adduces toward notability, he is mentioned only tangentially and less-than-substantively). Concur also in his sentiment that Mdude surely makes Wikilife interesting, for which one is, on the whole, grateful. Joe 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crz. Doesn't look all that notable, as the union he represents only has 1000 members who probably don't read this Wiki... if he is notable in Russia he needs an article in the Russian Wikipedia.--Tollwutig 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. One-sentence article and unlikely anything will be added. NN person anyway. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Since he's treated as notable/authoritative by news media like the BBC and Business Week, he's presumptively notable. Russian economic issues aren't exactly well-covered by web-based news media, but he turns up relatively regularly in articles that do appear [5]. Whether the BBC or other should treat him as notable is a different issue; once he's been treated as notable in major media, and mentioned with some frequency in news articles, whatever the sources, he's someone who a reader might quite reasonably want more information about, and therefore notable for Wikipedia purposes. If the article in inadequate, expand it. Monicasdude 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, MD, I've been mentioned in a half-dozen newspaper articles as well. Tangentially, of course, like IY here. Interviewed even once. I am starting to think I might be presumptively notable. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's interesting. Do you actually have any real claim to notability? (other than being a crazy Russian of course, I presume this is hardly exclusive :) -- Heptor talk 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • No, only presumptive notability per User:Monicasdude - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you in charge of some significant country-wide organization, or did you make research that was published in a serious publication more than a few times? I am quite serious, I have actually met editors here who have articles about themselves. -- Heptor talk 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg | talk 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The only thing the article mentions him is that he's a vice-president of a union, and even the union itself doesn't have an article. How is this encyclopedic? JIP | Talk 17:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if he's still being mentioned in the media. One of the very useful things I have found with Wiki is information of this type which wasn't available, or at least easily available, through other sources. I feel that it contributes to Wiki's comprehensiveness and gives it an edge over competitors. Tyrenius 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the organization is more notable but doesn't even have an article --Ajdz 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That is an argument for starting an article on the organization, not for deleting what minimal information exists about it via the article under discussion. If the labor union article existed, then this one could be merged with it perhaps. Tyrenius 00:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. What, it's not like we are running out of space here. -- Heptor talk 23:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, but in order for the reader to consider WP a creditble credible source of information, all our articles need to be about worthy subjects. Every time a reader encounters an unworthy inclusion, s/he will put less value on the properly included articles as well, and the perception will be that WP contains a buncha crap w/o quality control. Imagine yourself a judge who is doing research on a technical issue. Would you cite WP in your judicial opinion? I want to see WP reach that kind of quality. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not see how stating that "Igor Yurgens is vice-president of the Russian Union of Industrialists" (which totals the content of this article) can be understood as discrediting for Wikipedia. -- Heptor talk 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • This page is accessible to any member of the public and I think that a level of argument which describes the mention of an organisation's official as "a buncha crap" is far more likely to discredit it, as are spelling mistakes such as "creditble". I share the same goal of wanting to make Wikipedia respected. However, if we are to achieve this, then it is necessary to address the arguments, and my previous points have been ignored, not answered. Tyrenius 18:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Ok. For the record, I wasn't referring to IY as "a buncha crap", but to a theoretical unworthy article. Misspelling has been corrected. This is in the project namespace. It's ok to say "buncha crap" here. Doesn't discredit WP. And as for creating an article for the Union, upon further review, I could go for it. We can then extend a redirect from IY. Go ahead! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Following the suggestion there is now an article (stub) Russian Union of Industrialists which contains all the info from Igor Yurgens which can now be used as a redirect, if everyone is in agreement. The Union is more important than has been suggested, becauses the 1,000 members aren't individual employees: they are 1,000 businesses, factories etc. Tyrenius 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The sources provided imply that this fellow doesn't meet the professor test either, so I must concur with the Crazy Russian. Kuzaar 04:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per CrazyRussian's well reasoned arguments └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Heptor. Zeq 12:09, 29 April 2006 (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.