Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yevhen Zhovtyak

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 speedy keep. Issues resolved and nominaton withdrawal (non-admin closure) samee ^talk 12:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Zhovtyak

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

Notability issue WP:N. No sources mentioned to affirm notability. M A A Z T A L K 08:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reconsider it. The article has been updated and all the issues were resolved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am a little surprised that you being an experienced user created this page without mentioning any sources, etc. And then I added the tags for the past 3 days, and still the issues weren't resolved. Anyways, I see the issues are resolved now, and the article passes the subject specific guidelines, therefore I would like to co-operate with you on this and withdraw my nomination :). M A A Z T A L K 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing appears adequate as the subject meets WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a former member of parliament, which is sufficient for notability. --Michig (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The referencing does need improvement, I'll grant, but verifiably serving in a national parliament is a must-keep per WP:NPOL. So this can and should absolutely be flagged for {{refimprove}}, because even an elected legislator still requires more than just the primary source website of the legislature he served in before the article can be considered properly referenced or good, but there's no valid notability question. GNG only requires that solid sources exist, not that they're already all in the article as written, so there are certain notability claims which are considered important enough that an inadequately sourced article is still allowed to remain in place pending the addition of better sources — and verifiably serving in a national parliament is one of those. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 7 February 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.