Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Teodorovich

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 keep, per WP:SNOW. The nominator is encouraged to take note of WP:BEFORE. non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Teodorovich

If that's all the information we have on him, he doesn't need his own article. Carbon Rodney 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the two cited sources to see if they say more about him? That would seem like the place to start. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'd like to clarify that my reason for deletion is not a lack of notability but rather insufficient information to warrant a full article: and I don't mean the wikipedia article is incomplete, I mean I searched for documents or biographies of this fellow and came up with nada. If someone can out google-fu me, I will gladly reverse my stance. --Carbon Rodney 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope to expand - I think Commissar for Food Supply in the first Bolshevik government is certainly a notable position, and this reference confirms it. I have access to a library which contains the first two books on the reference list, so I may be able to help expand the article.JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even nominator admits he is notable and there are several sources listed. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubs are generally expected to have the potential to grow into full articles. This one looks like it does, especially the bit about being condemned for counter-revolutionary activities.
Strong keep, snowball keep Abuse of AfD, the nomination was put up 5 minutes after the article was created,[1][2] and the nominator then has the audacity to state "insufficient information to warrant a full article" I challenge the nominator to write an article in 5 minutes that has sufficient information to avoid zealous deletion. This is not the first time the nominator has done this, Flydubai was nominated 3 minutes after creation.[3] and I suspect the other 15 articles that the nominator has put up for deletion, which were deleted, are the same.Ikip (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this AfD nomination may have been ill-advised, but there is no need for such an intemperate and uncivil attack on the nominator. It may be perfectly possible to see after 5 minutes that an article is unsaveable. The Flydubai nomination you cite was over six months ago: the nominator's AfD record, which you list, is: out of 17 nominations, this one likely to be kept, Flydubai redirected, all the other 15 deleted (which means that other editors over five days' debate, and an administrator, agreed). That does not suggest overenthusiastic deletionism. Please AGF. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't putting an editors contributions up for deletion 5 minutes after they created the page, an uncivil attack? I agree with DGG, it was careless, and the editor should be warned. Ikip (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"But he did it first" is not much of an argument, especially when you're confusing carelessness with incivility. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator Since this Afd was added, this article has expanded greatly. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Minister of a government department is always notable, and this information was there from the very start. An article created this recently should only be nominated when from the information presented it's reasonably clear the subject is not going to be notable. As many of the editors nominations for AfD and speedy are perfectly OK, I think this was carelessness. DGG (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Article is sourced, and subject is notable. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep The article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2009 (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.