Praxidicae

Ria Serebryakova

Hello, I would like to know why the article Ria Serebryakova was removed? In my opinion the article did not meet any deletion requirements and besides it was only in one language (Volapük), so it cannot be deleted due to "Cross-wiki spam". It is possible that the article was deleted due to some bug.

Yours faithfully, Łukasz Winek (bespik) 14:35, 2020 gustul 10id (UTC)

It's promotional about a non notable individual who was sourced entirely to fake news sites. Please see the Wikidata item for the history of cross-wiki spam by several now globally locked editors. Praxidicae (bespik) 14:37, 2020 gustul 10id (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken it was created by me (at least expanded) in good-faith purposes, please restore the page. And do not delete Alexandra Bokova‎. --Wolverène (bespik) 04:21, 2020 gustul 11id (UTC)

Also you can't delete anything from here such easily, this is not a small Wikipedia in general understanding: even after hypothetical deletion of those (in)famous bot-generated articles there are around 15,000 human-made articles would be left, this is enough to be out of SWMT competence, so here should be some sort of discussion at some page in non-obvious cases. --Wolverène (bespik) 04:39, 2020 gustul 11id (UTC)

Ignoring is not a good option. I could just restore it manually. And in the case of repeated deletion I could ask another stewards at MetaWiki what they believe about what is promotional and what is not. --Wolverène (bespik) 14:35, 2020 gustul 15id (UTC)

Notability is still a requirement on most projects. You sourced it also entirely to fake sources and blackhat spam sites and it was commissioned for pay which is why the original editors were blocked. Why are you insisting on recreating it? Praxidicae (bespik) 14:42, 2020 gustul 15id (UTC)

In the cultural sense, not everybody who have been ever promoted are knowingly not notable. The understanding of notability is different from project to project, from very strict policies to lack of any. If a person can't be notable for en- or itWP it doesn't mean it doesn't fit here.

The sources were articles by named authors: [1], [2] (saying named I mean not anonymous, in many Wikipedias it's often enough to gain notability); non-anonymous interviews: [3], [4]; VOGUE Italy (I think you heard of Vogue). I admit that baltimorepostexaminer.com and filmdaily.co are suspicious sources, but there were only two of them, not "entirely".

I'm insisting because I don't care if it was a promotional act at Wikidata, I wasn't involved in promotion and I've never been a paid editor, at least because I know what it is, I'm not so patient to wait when it would became profitable for me.:) --Wolverène (bespik) 15:18, 2020 gustul 15id (UTC)

Interviews don't establish anything on any project, why should they here? The other links you've given are blacklisted most everywhere else for a reason, they are literally fake media sites operated by black hat SEO firms. Praxidicae (bespik) 15:20, 2020 gustul 15id (UTC)

Then why I wasn't warning by the abuse filter? --Wolverène (bespik) 15:37, 2020 gustul 15id (UTC)