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. Little to no policy-based reasoning in favor of keeping, from a lot of SPAs, with no reliable sources presented. ansh666 04:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Baker (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)

Non-notable freelance journalist and blogger. Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, no significant coverage found in reliable independent sources. CataracticPlanets (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I repeat: the famous Ukrainian journalist. He is not an independent, but a full-time specialist in UNIAN and a freelance specialist in other news agencies in Ukraine and Russia. An independent source is a biographical article in the most popular information resource of Ukraine "обозреватель" (this is in any case an authoritative source and so he is independent, since Dmytro is an expert on the war in the region, and not a regular journalist.) 1. There are articles in the second most popular Wikipedia Russian encyclopedia 2. Sanctions against this journalist by Russia and a ban on entry into the country on political motives. Just a very famous volunteer. The article is a translation from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. There she was checked by competent patrol officers. All sources must be sought in the languages ​​of the society in which this person lives, and not in English. Obviously, I'm against removal. Arguments are very serious. --BiNA (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BiNA is the creator of the article, which is a translation of the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. A subject may be Wikinotable in some language editions and not in others. The content of Wikipedia across its language editions is not identical. If we had one, single, identical Wikipedia across all languages that would mean that the planet has one, single, identical culture. :-) And remember that Wikinotability is not the same as what we commonly understand by the term! A subject may be very well known but lack of supporting sources might prevent an article about is appearing here. You could support your "keep" opinion by providing some translations of the text in the non-English sources that exist, as you claim, and some background for these sources. Checking for sources myself (in English), I find very little. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia with different language sections? In one encyclopedia they tell me that the meaning is either there or not, and the language is not important; here you tell me that this can be important for Ukraine, but it does not matter here. This is somehow stupid. And the most famous online resource in Ukraine - an authoritative source? In Wikipedia, this is such an introduction of the biography on that resource. If the article does not match any of the rules here, you can safely remove it. To make people understand that an article is important to another community, a template was put on the translation. In Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are criteria for the significance of this journalist, from the presence of biographies on authoritative websites to the presence of fan clubs. Well, then, if the rules are colossally different, remove them. I just wanted to pass on the information, because I'm not even the creator of this information, but an interpreter. Sincerely, BiNA (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who does not understand English very well, your use of the word "stupid" is, at best, very careless. Try and be a little more civil, please.

Once again, I have to explain: Wikipedia comes in many languages. No, there are no "different language sections" in Wikipedia; there are editions of Wikipedia in different languages. And they are all different to each other. "Different" means "NOT IDENTICAL"! One Wikipedia could have an article about a singer who's famous/notable in a certain country, while another would not. Now ask yourself, why does this happen? Hint: It's because one subject might be Wikinotable in, for example, Ukrainian and not notable in, for example, Catalan.

And do you know why this happens? Because, cultures vary across the world and I truly hope you don't want me to prove that too. So, in so many words, I repeat my suggestion, word for word: You could support your "keep" opinion by providing some translations of the text in the non-English sources that exist, as you claim, and some background for these sources. Checking for sources myself (in English), I find very little. This does not mean I'm recommending a "delete" action; I haven't made a suggestion yet. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome I understand what you mean. But... I will repeat once again that I am not the creator of this article, I'm just an interpreter of available material in another part of the Wikipedia language. I was not looking for information to write an article. I just translated. Just. Like other articles that I wrote here - Vadim Abramov (Ukrainian television presenter) and Katya Prizhilyak. None of them you will not find the information in English. For Ukrainian Wikipedia, there is enough such an authoritative source as the "Обозреватель" (all the information from the article is here). Very interesting information in different types of projects; on the site of the resource about everything 1, the most authoritative Russian encyclopedia 2 (There is another project where there is a lot of information, but it is blocked by filters and is competitive for Wikipedia, so I can not give a link.). Sitting to deal with the sites, I will not, because they are many (on request in Google "Дмитро Бакер" produces 1,800,000 results on request "Дмитрий Бакер" 1,150,000). Once again I repeat: I do not care what happens to this article, I did not do anything supernatural, except for a banal translation of the material. By the way, I did not know about this, but this person also turns out to be a cover singer, many websites have access to this confirmation (this is not information, as a fact). If the article does not comply with the project rules, just delete it. With love, BiNA (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are told that you need sources that can be checked in English. But I understand you, the "obozrevatel" obviously does not need to confirm the meaning. Jack Bulitlo (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I cleared the quick delete template, because the value was obvious. I have no idea who it is, but the information here and here is very authoritative. Especially in the first. If there is information in these sources, then it is not worth doubting, especially for the countries of the former USSR. Jack Bulitlo (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)— Jack Bulitlo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Greetings. The two "very authoritative" sources you cited are Wiki mirrors and therefore, as such, unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete Really? to delete? Such sources are not authoritative for you? and 359 views for 2 days for a dude from Ukraine (before the revolution of 2014 I had no idea where this country is located). do not joke so, take it off the discussion. (5.105.117.243 (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. He's a 19 year old Ukrainian journalist. The article has no citations. As non-Ukranian speakers we cannot judge the authority or veracity of the websites where his name is mentioned. For all I know the original article from which this one was translated was written by his aunt. Chisme (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a horror... Are you serious? Aunt? Why not mom, sister, wife, girlfriend? Yes, you can delete only the article if you are so far away that even the "Обозреватель" is not authoritative for you (this is an information resource with your own TV channel, news agency, representation in different countries and much more). For general development. BiNA (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete, of course. I, too, have no idea about whom the article is, but the sources are authoritative enough. Biography on the leading information resource of the country has an indisputable authority. And the article now has more than 970 views, which for a nineteen-year-old journalist from the East European country is a huge indicator. Do not touch the article, definitely. FYT Mikola (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— FYT Mikola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. It's not even funny. What can be discussed with such sources? Significance on all sides climbs. I'm from Belarus, but who knows this perfectly. Dmitro the journalist who covered the war in Ukraine, was a member of the Eurovision delegation this year, was one of the commentators on the STB television channel. The biography on the already mentioned site is the peak of significance for a journalist of the post-Soviet space. Maybe you are concerned about age? Look out the window, there's the 21st century. -5.105.212.19 (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)— 5.105.212.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment The reasoning of the suggestions made by FYT Mikola and 5.105.212.19 is horrible. One argues that the article in Wikipedia is getting a lot of hits, but that is neither here nor there: Wikipedia does not care at all about "number of hits" on its own articles, and, in any case, when an article comes up for AfD it's bound to have many visitors. Plus, we can have an extremely "popular" article, in terms of hits, which is not notable at all. All we'd need is pictures of cats and babies. :-)

The other invokes the coming of the 21st century as an argument. But Wikipedia does not judge age. We do accept articles about young people. (How young? How about two days old?) What you folks need to do is get off the high horse of indignation and dig up some serious sources about the subject. Otherwise, it's a cinch it's going down in flames. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My God, how much can you discuss the credibility of the available sources? I understand that you do not know the Ukrainian language, but you can use Google translator? Here is the "Обозреватель". A little later I'll write an article about this news agency. What is "Cyclopedia" (Russian: Циклопедия) is known to anyone who knows how to use the Russian-language Internet segment. They even use it in school or as a source in course student work. And the arguments of the people are very weighty. Some articles about Ukrainians here do not gain 900 (and already more than 1,100) views and for the year. This is a good proof of the relevance of the material. But I already said, if you want, you can safely delete, let people read in Ukrainian or Russian languages, and if they do not understand their problems, let them translate. Sincerely, BiNA (talk) 09:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not "read" Ukrainian but are you sure you read English? You seem to ignore completely what other people are saying. You just sail on happily and repeat what you already said. Once more, then, in very simple language: The number of hits on a web page does not, repeat DOES NOT, signify much (read: nothing whatsoever) as far as notability is concerned. Is that clear? Is that understood? And I do not care if this article stays up or gets deleted. But policy is policy. -The Gnome (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above discussion establishing that this subjwct does not meet notability standards for English Wikipedia. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. They asked to participate. I, as a patrolman of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, who checked the article there, can not vote for the deletion. But I can not vote for the hard abandonment of the article here. The significance is obvious, but for the Ukrainian space. Sources are authoritative, in fact, but perhaps not for the English Wikipedia. I refrain, but rather tend to against removal, in connection with the arguments given. ---Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a BLP and a lack of any sources should immediately qualify for a speedy deletion. An undersourced BLP would certainly qualify for consideration at AFD. Aside from that we have a transfer from another Wikipedia version, that has drawn an influx of new editors (to this Version), that must not understand the importance of sourcing a BLP when !voting to keep. It does not matter if we personally know of, or know the subject, we can not have an unsourced BLP on this Wikipedia. I may just be naive but I assumed that any version of Wikipedia would have to comply with the five pillars. Otr500 (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sources, significance too. -Victoria III (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)— Імператриця Вікторія (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We have some planes? -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and above discussion. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements for en. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 12:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a total lack of reliable, 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much mention is made above about "Обозреватель" / "Obozrevatel" proving his notability, but this organisation does not have its own article on en.wikipedia, so I would not use it to prove notability here. He seems to be notable in Ukraine, so good luck to him there, but no proof of notability in English speaking regions. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to this argument, no source needs to be in English and there is no need for notability in "English-speaking regions". The only thing that is supposed to be Egnlish-language about Wikipedia is the text of the articles. Language is not supposed to drive context. In an ideal world the French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Tongan and Swahili Wikipedias would all have the same content and content guidelines. They do not because of differening numbers of editors, different consensus by editors and related issues. However language of sources, or language someone writes in should not influence inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Previously commented, now decided on the voice. I wrote the article for the Obozrevatel, because you will not wait for promises. The authority of this resource is obvious. Why now vote "against removal"? I just missed, and now I found: this journalist became the second most popular blogger in Ukraine according to the version of the same "Obozrevatel". This is already a level of significance, and of course biography. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (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.