Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov

Whilst this chap seems to have hit some newspapers for making kiddy-porn, I can see no evidence of leng-term notability and certainly nothing that makes WP:BLP1E and justifies a biography. Troikoalogo (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, I vote to keep these kinds of things (most nominations of this sort are just people seeking to whitewash BLPs), but this seems to be a special case; there really isn't anything to indicate notability in the case of this particular person, or even anything to indicate that he was even convicted after his arrest. In cases of marginal-to-no notability when the BLP is nothing but negative, I don't see much reason to keep it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BIO1E. I found one burst of RS news coverage in 2000 then unreliable coverage after that. This could be a notable crime but the story just does not add up. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single British news report, describing an arrest but not a conviction, isn't enough to keep this article. Wikipedia is not a directory of all the crimes that have ever been committed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reliable source which confirms that he pleaded guilty. The article in the Observer (which was cited as Reference 5) does not seem to contain this information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional sources to this article, including one documenting an admission of guilt. This seems to have been a major international investigation between US and UK Customs, as well as the MUR of the Moscow Police. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - All you've added is more news stories, seemingly all from the same press association report. Nothing new here, and no evidence of any continuing significance.--Troikoalogo (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Demokratizatsiya (journal) is a peer-reviewed journal, there is a press release from the US Customs Service, and articles in both US and UK newspapers. If I could read Russian, I am sure I could locate more. That this story attracted news coverage on multiple continents, and none of the sources located so far are even from the subjects own country, indicates notability. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious notability.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having several publications about a person in mainstream newspapers is enough to establish notability per WP:Notability.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Miyokan (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Surely a joint action by US, UK and Moscow authorities is notable, and the subject is not a garden variety porn producer, but it appears he is a convicted child murderer, in a rather horrific fashion. There are quite a few sources, and while I'd like to see more (anyone speak Ru? Should we ask on ru.wikipedia.org?) this does seem to meet notability, although in a horribly tragic fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources say this? Sources provided so far say that Kuznetsov was arrested as the distributor and alleged ringleader in February 2000 and then released under amnesty in September 2000. RS coverage ends there. As I said above, this sounds like a notable crime, except the events don't fit together in a verifiable (or even completely plausible) manner. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he was convicted is completely irrelevant. The sources say he admitted supplying the pornography, and multiple sources acrosss multiple continents far surpass any requirements in WP:5P and WP:NOTE. Exactly what is the issue with not keeping this more than adequately sourced article? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Gene93k is correct (thanks for the gentle nudge to re-check the sources, Gene) - a porn supplier is completely different matter from what the article describes. I'm thinking at this point that it would be best to delete, unless you have sources to back up what the article claims. Otherwise, if the article is trimmed to what the sources support, it is a non-blip on the notability scale. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:03, 11 September 2008 (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.