Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lubomyr Luciuk

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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lubomyr Luciuk

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

Subject of BLP requests deletion due to inaccuracies and persistent posting of unsourced negative opinion (OTRS Ticket#2013011910003828) - see, e.g. edit of 16 January 2013; Also, questionable notability per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unquestionably notable as WPPROF and WP AUTHOR> Full professor at RMC Canada, clearly an authority in his field, author of multiple books published by major university press, mentioned in the article. I can see some possibly controversial elements to his career, and some questions of what would be the correct wording, but these are to be resolved in the usual way, by editing. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE OR BLOCK POSTER: I do not have the time to continuously return to this WIKIPEDIA entry, that I posted originally as a public service, to repeatedly correct the nonsense that one rather silly fellow keeps inserting; a biographical entry on a serious site (i.e. Canada's Who's Who) does not allow for malcontents or those bearing malicious grudges to post their fantasies about what, by anyone's reckoning, was a minor incident (that this individual misrepresents). Nevertheless he keeps coming on line to spew nonsense, and has done so several times, over the past several years. I would be happy to leave my entry on WIKIPEDIA if it were not subject to the "editing" (sic) of this "videographer"; otherwise, since it is about me, I am alive, and have made it clear that I do not wish to spend time returning to remove silly "edits" I offer a simple choice - either block the poster from "editing" the entry about me or take my entry off line. Thanks,

Professor L Luciuk (22 January 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable scholar in his field, political activist in his country's affairs. Neither his own COI and autobiographical edits "as a public service", nor any problems with BLP violations, should cause us to delete this article. Improvement, not deletion, is clearly the path to take here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject only manages a GS h-index of 6 (please correct if wrong) so WP:Prof#C1 is doubtful. May pass WP:GNG on eastern European nationalist activism. The BLP in its present state does not appear to contain any offensive material. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notability is marginal, but I think this squeaks by. Most of his books have very low holdings, but 2 of them have >200: Creating a Landscape and Searching for Place. WoS h-index is 2, but this statistic is not terribly applicable here. Article has no actual WP:RS and it is full of WP:OR. These issues must be addressed if this article is kept. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi all you pseudonyms, please use your real names when posting comments here so that your credibility, and relevance, becomes apparent. Cheerio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.54 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is against Wikipedia policy to reveal personal information of its editors (such as real names of editors working pseudonymously); see WP:OUTING. As for credibility: cases here are decided based on the strength of the arguments and their connection to established guidelines, not on ad hominem credentialism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with David, but will also suggest to anon to use an account next time so that we don't see that his/her IP is in the same city as Luciuk's place of employment :) Agricola44 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Unquestionably notable per WP:GNG regardless of whether he also passes WP:PROF; e.g. highbeam returns 150 hits for his name and although many are in the same publication (Ukrainian Weekly) others aren't. The article does need major cleanup and I was particularly dismayed to see the immediate reversion of this edit attempting to bring the article into line with our BLP policies on sourcing; however, AfD should not be for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (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.