- Rafael Mikhailovich Minasbekyan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The article was quickly removed for publicity. I unsubscribed on the article discussion page when I saw the deletion template, but no one gave any explanations and the article was deleted. There was no advertisement in the text, if the nominee did not like some of the phrases, it will not be difficult to delete them. The article is significant, please consider its restoration. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have temporarily undeleted this. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted version was rather too much of a resume. If I had noticed it I would probably draftified it. I don't think it really had a G11 level of promotion, but it was not a well-written article. There should But if the statements included are accurate (I can't verify the sources in Russian) this person was probably notable. There should be no bar to creating a better version, preferably in draft space, or to undeleting and draftifing. So allow recreation or draftify. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the restoration. Please tell me, can you restore the text to the article and help remove advertising phrases? Namerst (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask experienced participants for help. If someone has time, please help me correct the text. Many thanks. Namerst (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not while this review is in progress, Namerst. After that, it depends on how this discussion is closed. But it is not just "some of the phrases" There need to be better sources, and it needs to read like an encyclopedia article, not a resume or a social media profile.
From 1987 to 1989 – served in Border troops in USSR. is irrelevant and should go. The bulleted list of unreferened films and TV series should be at the least referenced, and preferably some paragraphs of prose added about at least some of these productions, bases on independent sources. The section on "Author of scientific articles and books" should select the more significant and influential ones, and demonstrate that influence by citing and quoting independent reviews, or stats on how often these papers are cited, or both. If there are high-quality English-language citations, some should be used. Provide translations of the titles and names of publications of non-English-language sources. And the help I could offer is limited because I can't read the sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The temporary restoration is only to allow people in this discussion to see what the deleted article was like, it should not be edited at all during the discussion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I edit the text in the recovered version of the article? Or do I need to wait for the outcome here, and only then edit? Namerst (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please pay attention to my sandbox. Completely removed the section - Author of scientific articles and books. I think that it is not needed in the article. I also removed your remark and removed the offer to serve in the army. Highlighted with wiki links films that were on Wikipedia. There he is also listed as a producer in the template of each article. I am ready to further correct the article. Please tell me how I can still correct the text. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify or Restore recreation There is a valid claim for notability and does not appear to be overly promotional. I recommend sending it to AFC for review. --Enos733 (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn G11 - The issue here is whether the article should have been speedily deleted as G11. It is not exclusively promotional or advertising. It is a mix of encyclopedic information and advertising. The only real issue here is whether the article should have been speedily deleted, not how to improve it or whether it should be in article space. It would be reasonable to give the author a choice of draftifying it and taking it through AFC or of trying to improve it in article space, in which case it may be either whacked at or nominated for AFD. This is not the forum to improve the article, only to avoid its speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert and draftify - an actual article might be possible (this was not it). Sure, it was crappy, misshapen and somewhat promotional but nowhere near the level justifying a speedy deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify I have my doubts here, but thre's no harm in trying. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy send to AfD if you will. It might die there via WP:TNT, it might get fixed, or it might get kept (which would be a bit sad, but not crazy). But it is mostly just a list of facts. Not a great article, and certainly too much like a resume, but not all things start out perfect. Are their known or suspected WP:COI issues here? Hobit (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn speedy - not a great article, reads too much like a resume, but it's not overly promotional; it doesn't really contain any promotional language (puffery) or claims; just doesn't rise to the level of meriting speedy deletion. Someone can take it to AFD if they think the subject is not notable, or they can edit the article if they think it needs improvement. Lev!vich 22:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
