Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Stepanenko

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stepanenko

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:FILMMAKER. The only material I can locate in English sources are social media like Vine, UpWork, Facebook and LinkedIn. From what I could tell the Ukrainian sources are nearly as bare but I am far, far from fluent. As it stands this is an effectivly unsourced BLP. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Keep based on Russian language sources and discussion linked in my Comment below Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)</s struck because Russian sources enough to pass GNG have since beeen identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has added some sources see The article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion. Why?. ~~In short there is only one in depth source about the subject and I am unsure of the quality of the site which published even that.~~ Jbh ^Talk 13:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm guessing there are a lot more sources on him in Ukrainian and Russian. If these are high level sources (national newspapers etc) then he may very well pass the notability test. At the moment it's sort of borderline.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage about the person in Russian language sources as a participant of the conflict, one of organizers of a military hospital and documentary film director [1]. For example, this,[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. I did not even check Ukrainian language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on references meeting WP:GNG. What is User:Johnpacklambert basis for deletion, now the nomination is withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no basis for deletion but the Russian language sorces were first pointed out in a discussion two days after my vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think my first strike though of my comment above didnot close right. I also explained that was a move to keep (althoufh since we are past withdrawal of nomination it does not matter much.) That someone got lost when I saved about a minute ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG based on My very best wishes's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2017 (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.