Talk:Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was procedural keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on May 10, 2014. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Vehemently reject

Your omission of sources. How do you know they are not reliable? Ging287 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, my deletion of reference to rugrad.eu. You may visit their site and find out, that they publish news for a fee. I think that removing of such links is necessary to improve the article, because right now, this article is full of biased information. Gdv777 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not required to be neutral, only reliable. Ging287 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC) @Gdv777:, please stop disruptively removing sources and attempting to cite a link to the external links policy. Sources are NOT required to be neutral, only reliable. Ging287 (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Do you think that removed sources are reliable? It's not obvious for me, because all the materials contain unverifiable researches only. I suggest to avoid such references in the article.Gdv777 (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdv777:, you seem to embrace the idea of consensus when it comes to reverting edits. Yet you show no new reply via the talk page. Now, I can understand the one about rufrad.eu, but how can you demonstrate the other sources are unreliable? Also, is the other account yours?

http://www.worldreview.info/content/krysha-russian-oligarchs-and-their-protectors is reliable as they have an editorial policy seen here.

http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2014/02/can-oligarchs-be-good-for-the-economy/ is reliable as the author of the blog is an expert on the topic.

http://www.vedomosti.ru/companies/news/19835931/kak-raspalsya-soyuz are a well respected online news source in Russia. How exactly are these sources unreliable to you?

Ging287 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About removed sources:

http://www.worldreview.info/content/krysha-russian-oligarchs-and-their-protectors - The author of this article is a free-lance journalist, she is not an expert in this topic. That does not match with paragraph 3 of WP:NOTGOSSIP.

http://www.vedomosti.ru/companies/news/19835931/kak-raspalsya-soyuz- While this matter is not resolved in a lawful manner, such assertions are unverifiable - so this source can be removed according to the rule WP:Libel.

No, another account doesn't belong to me.Gdv777 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdv777:, you removed far more than those sources, including reliably sourced part of the controversy. Wikipedia is not here for promotion or advocacy or omission of a negative cause. So therefore, unless you explain your edits on why you removed that bit of the controversy, I will revert it. Ging287 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sources

@Gdv777:, World Review is full of experts and has a peer review and editorial control, and is therefore a reliable source. http://www.worldreview.info/about-us | So I reverted your edit (respectfully) that removed this source. Tutelary (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tutelary: References 3, 4, 6 don't contain information about Sergei Vasiliev and "Soyuz Corporation"! Evidently, these sites have removed information about Sergei Vasiliev. So, The references can be removed, because they do not refer to the article. Please, delete them. VolgaCamper (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources 3, 4 and 6, 5, 7 have no any information about Sergei Vasiliev. VolgaCamper (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Information misinterpreted. Andrey Baranov was dismissed by the law, but there is no information in the article that someone of them attempted to acquire the shares in the company. VolgaCamper (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]