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 no consensus. The rule that BLPs default to delete on no consensus when the subject requested deletion does not apply as there is no evidence that the request for deletion came from the subject. Tim Song (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seda Pumpyanskaya

[edit]

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

Hello. wmuk: received an email from the Council of Europe requesting the deletion of this article, which I'm passing on in a personal capacity. The request was (quoted with their permission):

"The article represents the biography of the former Director of Communication, and has become the field of a never-ending battle of edits and reverts. We would appreciate it if you could delete the entire article from Wikipedia, since it contains inaccurate information about the person and has no genuine informational value to the Wikipedia community."

They also said in a follow-up email that "the tone of the article is not neutral as the Wikipedia rules impose for biographies, but gratulatory. The article might also not comply with the notability guidelines for biographies."

I personally can't see any benefit to keeping this article, as the subject does not appear to be notable by our standards. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 39 news articles on google news archive. Couple mentions in books. Also per WP:POLITICIAN she's had a UN office, and a council of europe one, (sourceable to news articles), and international politicians are generally notable. I don't feel like switching my keyboard over to cyrillic but I bet there is more in russian. Is this from the volunteer email board thingy?--Savonneux (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those news articles are where she is being a spokesperson. References in books appear to be either similar, or CoE publications. The offices do not appear to be as an elected politician, so does WP:POLITICIAN apply? Mike Peel (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who says politicians have to be elected?--Savonneux (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Named a Young Global Leader ... seems that would be enough to pass WP:N. Blueboy 96 22:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed - there's no reference for her being a young global leader in the article. Mike Peel (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said "weak keep" rather than a full keep. Blueboy 96 12:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Subject is politically notable.I assume the email is not verified as the subject. I also note that there has been some partisan desire to negativity edit and delete the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN — as noted by Savonneux, she's held two international offices —. The article does seem a bit of a battlefield, but that's what semi-protection and blocks are for... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Subject appears to have been a "spokesman" for a UN mission and the Council of Europe. In my mind that doesn't make her a politician or in scope for WP:POLITICIAN. Although there are a handful of sources where her name is mentioned they are passing mentions, where the importance of the story is mostly for MINUGUA and/or the Council of Europe - hence I think it fails WP:N. More generally, I would say if the subject requests deletion we should err on the side of deleting it (even if that isn't written anywhere) AndrewRT(Talk) 19:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. I'm the Chair of WMUK and personally know Mike Peel who nominated the AfD although my views are my own and independent)[reply]

The subject has not requested deletion, there is no confirmation of that request at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another WMUK board member and I have no opinion on this article. I'd just like to clarify that the email came from someone else at the Council of Europe Directorate of Communication (I don't know their job title), not the subject. It is from a coe.int email address, is that confirmation enough of the origin (I'm not sure what the standards are for that - I know email addresses are trivial to fake)? I don't know if people want to treat an request from a colleague of the subject the same as a request from the subject themselves - people can decide that for themselves. --Tango (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The request was from the same person that has been vandalising the article, a partisan request from someone opposed to the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it by the same person? To clarify, by 'vandalising' you mean removing content?

My hope is that the outcome of this deletion debate will be based upon the verifiable facts about the person (and hence a determination of their notability), rather than reactions to the source of the request or the previous edit history of the article. The fundamental question is: should this person have a Wikipedia article, yes or no? (Followed closely, of course, by "why?"). Mike Peel (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting your information? I can't see any edits by someone with the same name as the emailer and I can't see why they would be in opposition to their colleague. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the article history, there is vandalism from the same location as the email, Strasbourg, council of europe and the requests posted by the ip at the BLPN, "please this person is not notable and the article is promotional" , in just the same way as the request sent here. Main issue for me is that there is no request from the subject to delete and there has been from the same location edits of a nature to remove content and comments that this person is not notable in the exact manner as the request posted above. Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN thread, Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, Mike Peel. Were you able to verify the authenticity of the email? Personally, I don't see any reason for deletion as the subject is clearly notable, statements are properly-sourced, and the article has a potential to expand. But if Pumpyanskaya is requesting it herself through the agency of the Council of Europe then I am of the opinion that we should comply even just for courtesy. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Tango said, the request came from a coe.int email address. Given that I replied to the same email address and subsequently received a response, that rules out the possibility of a faked address. I do not know what involvement the article subject has in the request. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the Revision History of the article it is obvious that some individual from the Council of Europe was responsible for the vandalism. This could also be verified by a Wikipedia admin who has access to IP addresses of the most flagrant vandals. I would say that issue should be forwarded to the IT Administrator at the Council of Europe for possibly illegal internet abuse if not worse.PaulRaunette (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide diffs? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (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.