Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Gorshtenin

:{{la|Yan Gorshtenin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yan_Gorshtenin Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Yan Gorshtenin}})

Non-notable teenager trying to promote himself by paying for a Wikipedia article (in accordance with the TOU by an editor who has declared that status). Nothing here remotely comes close to notability: the sourcing is either all non-RS blogs or interviews with trade pubs, which are both primary sourcing, so not counting towards GNG, or are pushing the border of what we consider RS. Article has been G11ed in the past, but the language is neutral enough this time around that it should be evaluated at AfD. This fails both points of WP:N, not enough RS coverage and as promotion excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N, and sources (which rely on user-generated information and interviews with the article subject) fail WP:VER. This is a primary sourcing issue, as the only claims of significance in the subject article come from answers given by the article subject. Note that the last time this article subject appeared on Wikipedia, the article creator was most likely the article subject. While the creator of the current article has disclosed that he/she has been paid, I find this to be unsavory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While writing the article I was unaware that primary sourcing could extend to material supposedly provided by the subject (i.e. interviews in this case) even though it has been included and published by sources completely independent of the subject. Perhaps more clarification should be provided in WP:VER in that regard. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Primary sources can in some circumstances be used to meet WP:V. They do not, however, satisfy WP:GNG, which requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete fail all WP:BIO, however NOT Anough significant coverage on wikipedia multiple sources , i mean Reliably sources. Samat lib (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2017 (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.