Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Kostrzhevskiy

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. ✗plicit 01:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kostrzhevskiy

[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)

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he copied and pasted his CV here; I find no sources, but they are likely in Ukrainian so I can't read them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, cleanup. MPs are presumed notable. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this CV. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts regarding that notability issue: If he has been a member of parliament and if a reliable source confirms that (although I can find no such source), this would be notable. However, that is not sufficient justification for the existence of the article. It also needs "enough valid content to fill an article about a person." Once we remove the list of material that appears to have been taken straight from his CV without external sources, there's nothing left. Delete this. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify. I’ve added a source showing that he was a member of the Rada. Only the lede should be kept though. The rest is just cv fodder and should all go. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The refs added by Mccapra do show notability per WP:GNG and he also meets WP:NPOL. The original state of the article was atrocious, but deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Even in the current state, however, that "Achievements" section needs to go. - Aoidh (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL. A thorough cleanup would be helpful though. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the appropriate notability guideline (WP:NPOL). Deletion is not cleanup —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person Meets WP:NPOL. BBSTOP (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not be notable now, but he was, so still is now as per WP:NTEMP. Also found this mention of his Green party affiliation.Chagropango (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NPOL as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2022 (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.