Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vadym Troyan

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. (non-admin closure) ansh666 15:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Troyan[edit]

Vadym Troyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the Vadym Troyan page has been deleted and recreated under several different name variations (by 'different' new accounts, one confirmed sock puppet). See Troyan Vadym, Trojan VADIM and TROYAN Vadym per A7 and G11. One of them was even blocked for recreation by an admin. I recommend Speedy deleting but I bring it to AfD to give a last chance to defend its inclusion and if deleted be able to use WP:G4 to help fight against any further recreation under different names. The issue has been raised at wp:AN/I by 220, see here. Crystallized C (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has been deleted 7 times for notability concerns under the three different titles, two of which are salted. The citation here does not support the assertion that Vadim Troyan has been appointed "the Head of the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the Kyiv region". What it says is that he was appointed as deputy commander of the "Azov" battalion. That's the only source in the article; most of the article is unsourced. I don't think we have the in-depth coverage required to establish notability at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had to revert edits removing the deletion discussion template from the article by Ignat22, another single purpose account and probably also a new puppet.--Crystallized C (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is persistently being recreated because it is a valid article. I linked it to his Russian and Ukrainian bios. This article is a mess and needs to be written in a neutral manner, but the obsession to delete it needs to stop. This article and this bio show he is most definitely "the Head of the Main Department of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine in the Kyiv region." The things going on with Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs are highly notable and as chief of police for the entire Kyiv oblast he has received sufficient coverage. As a colonel and deputy commander of the Azov Battalion he was already notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is no "obsession" by anybody to delete the article, just a commitment to follow and help others follow our policies. If that fails then we each try to help the project enforce them. In the case of this article some important policies that we have choose to follow in Wikipedia have been violated repeatedly and sistematically and always reaping the same result. That behaviour woud seem to be a better fit for the term that you used.

As far as the article is concerned, as you say, it clearly promotional not only because its text does not comply with neutral point of view, but also because it has been created re-created and edited by sock puppets. The other major issue is notability. This Biography of a living person does not currently meet our notability guidelines for people or our general notability guidelines. To establish notability the article needs to have at least two references from Independent reliable sources that treat the subject in depth. Currently the only source may be valid to meet verifiability requirements, but it is not independent from the subject of the BLP. If, as you claim, he has received sufficient coverage from reliable sources, please add those references to the article or at least list the links in this discussion. Thank you.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two independent references from reliable sources have been added to the article by Wikimandia. It now seems to meet our minimum requirements for notability. The article still has neutral point of view and verifiability issues. If the issues are not solved today I will probably attempt to improve it myself.--Crystallized C (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I started neutralizing the article, but it still needs a lot of work. In its current state I don't think it's yet fit for inclusion, as. It's still promotional and biased and has verifiability issues. I am no longer interested in further improving the article. It's a subject that I personaly don't feel like digging deeper into. Editors interested in keeping the article should probably address those serious issues.--Crystallized C (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I say "obsession" because the persistence in deleting the article (including salting the name) has not been matched by any due diligence to find out if the subject is notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to Assume good faith. You continue to use an offensive and inaccurate term. Are you seriously implying that the six administrators that previously deleted it along with all the regular editors that nominated it or tagged it as well as myself are obsessed with the deletion of this article? If that is not the case, then the word "obsession" was probably not a good choice.

The only repetitive behavior in clear violation of our policies was the systematic recreation of the article without even trying to address or seek help about any of the serious concerns pointed out by multiple users and administrators, and using instead sock puppets and four different permutations for the name to try to circumvent our policies.

How would you describe that behavior?

Notability has been addressed, but there are still serious issues to resolve. If you or any other editors neutralize or commit to fix the article within a reasonable period of time to ensure it also meets WP:NPOV and WP:V I would, of course, change my vote.--Crystallized C (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Saying you'll recommend keep if other people fix the article is bullshit. That's not what we do here. I've already worked on the article considerably and I will try to fix it more if I have time. And none of the four different permutations of his name would have prevented anyone from finding info about him. There's this great thing called Google that will give you the same results whether you search for "Vadym Troyan" or "Troyan Vadym" or "Vadim Troyan" or "Troyan Vadim." Google understands transliteration and knows Vadym/Vadim and Trojan/Troyan are the same anyway. And the link confirming his position is right in the article. Sorry if you're offended but the deletion history of this article is a fail. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not joking. The article was practically unsourced with just external links not independent of the subject. but most importantly it was clearly biased and promotional recreated multiple times and deleted under WP:G11 by many different users after been recreated by socks in clear violation of WP:COI I did not participate in any of those speedy deletions. I started this discussion to either save of prevent any further recreation of the article. But I think that those deletions were perfectly justified under our policies. I have also worked to try to neutralize the article, but it still needs significant work. It is still promotional, poorly written and barely passed notability. I feel that it should either be neutralized or deleted. We should not allow such a flagrant use of Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Since still you seem to think that the author of the article acted correctly in recreating the article in its previous state using puppets. And you chose instead to classify my comments with an offensive word, you will probably be happy to know that I do not want have any further debate with you on this topic, as I am convinced it would be pointless. --Crystallized C (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article may still have some WP:NPOV and WP:V issues, but it satisfies notability for inclusion, as it now has reliable sources. The previous deletions were for unproven notability, so I cannot justify deleting it again. It just needs to be rewritten. Ceosad (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (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.