Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Montik

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Ivan Montik}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Ivan Montik}})

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. Sources look plentiful, but consist of a few interviews and some articles at best indirectly associated with the person (many of which don't even mention him), nothing even close to sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with concerns on sources and that, when parsed and balanced, they amount to a fail of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Ivan Montik, which appears to be word-for-word the same as this article, although it was nominally created by different editors. Creating two copies of a page in draft space and article space is often done to game the system by preventing draftification of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, I noticed that, too. As for 'different editors', I reckon there are issues of that ilk, which I will look into when I get a chance. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
• Keep the article: Hey! I've been working on the same article for a month, as I see someone have added a picture and few more relible sources to SBCnews and Eurogames and push it to a mainspace - now i have received notification and join the discussion. Thank you all for expressing your opinions on the article that have been created. In defense of the article: Searching by name yields multiple results from different sources. There are many interviews, but there are also product and company reviews that are secondary sources. It is worth noting the presence of quotes related not only to the developers industry. The person has played a major role in co-creating a well-known technik which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Vlavluck (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for joining the discussion. Now that you're here, can you shed any light on how you and another editor came to create two identical copies of this article? Also, when you say you "received notification", what do you mean by that, given that you're not the creator of this article (or rather, this particular copy)? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hi DoubleGrazing! As I see there are few more contributors who added an image and two more sources and publish the article bypassing my draft. By "received notification" I mean that when I've been checking status of my draft's resubmission, I've found notice that the article already exist. When I've checked it I realise that is my draft. But since I have no copyright for it from the moment it was posted on the site, I have no complaints about it. The main question we are faced here is whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia and how it can be improved in order to save it Vlavluck (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delete as it stands - crypto-related puffery, dubious sourcing unsuitable for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.