Oleksandr Komarov (businessman) : WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The person is notable, he meets WP:BIO — he is a CEO of the biggest mobile operator of Ukraine for many years and has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the person.  He also has several awards and honours — Head the best leaders ranking according to Forbes Ukraine, Lead Ideal Managers (a ranking of the telecom industry's best executives), he made it into the top 10 executives of Ukraine, top 20 most successful leaders of Ukrainian companies and many others.  -- Perohanych ( talk ) 17:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Keep .   The page reads pretty much as his personal CV, but there are numerous sources (primarily in Ukrainian) with non-trivial coverage of the person.  Probably passes WP:GNG.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Per nom.  WP:MILL business person.  No WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO .  No SNGs apply here.  C F A 💬 16:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with this.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Please find some examples of WP:SIGCOV : https://forbes.ua/profile/oleksandr-komarov-369 (1 place among top 25 best СЕО) https://www.epravda.com.ua/news/2018/12/6/643323/ https://biz.nv.ua/ukr/markets/v-kijivstar-priznachili-novoho-kerivnika-z-beeline-2483354.html See also 17,000+ results of Google Search in Ukrainian Komarov is really No 1 business person in Ukraine -- Perohanych ( talk ) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed. My very best wishes ( talk ) 18:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs ) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete none of the sources are deep enough or independent enough to establish the person's notability. The article's author does not understand what reliable sources are. The page is REFBOMBED and contains only passing, routine mentions. There are no good, reliable sources. Profiles on Forbes are not reliable at all, nor are press releases. -- 182.53.28.77 ( talk ) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, I stand by my delete here.  References are trivial mentions.  Does not meet WP:BASIC .  Everything else is routine press releases.  C F A 💬 19:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) please adhere to this guideline and learn how to spot paid or superficial news from deep media coverage 182.53.28.77 ( talk ) 09:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But mentiones sources are not paid or superficial news!  They do contain an in-depth analysis of the person.  It is not just a profile on Forbes, it is a profile in connection with the fact that Forbes recognized Komarov as the No. 1 person among businessmen in the whole country!  -- Perohanych ( talk ) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ 182.53.28.77 , this is a person.  The applicable guidelines here are WP:GNG or WP:NBIO , not WP:NCORP .  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Lots of trivial mentions and interviews among the available sources, but I'd count Interfax Ukraine , EPravda , Forbes Kazakhstan and DELO.ua as sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG .  If the consensus goes toward deletion, I'd recommend a redirect to Kyivstar instead of outright deletion.  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 18:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the coverage is trivial and consists only of passing mentions.  The provided sources and WP BEFORE do not help establish notability.  WP MILL and WP SIGCOV should be especially considered here.  Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 09:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Old-AgedKid please explain why Interfax Ukraine , EPravda , Forbes Kazakhstan , DELO.ua and forbes.ua are not sufficient WP:SIGCOV to clear WP:GNG ?  -- Perohanych ( talk ) 18:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] because of Wikipedia:TRIVIALMENTION - none of the provided source meet reliable source requirement per WP:CORPDEPTH (The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization) Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:CORPDEPTH — is about organizations and companies, not about persons.  Oleksandr Komarov is a person.  At the addresses, specified above, there are pages dedicated entirely to Komarov's biography and achievements.  This does not fit the definition of trivial mention.  -- Perohanych ( talk ) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] yes, I messed up Corpdepth with WP:SIGCOV ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline ).  None of the sources provided meets SIGCOV.  Here is the assessment of the sources: Interfax - only a passing mention and a press-release with a direct referencing to the press-center of the company; Forbes Kazakhstan - a press-release style page with brief, résumé-like mentions of his past positions, lacking significant coverage that may establish notability.  Delo - a passing mention of the person with routine mentions of his three previous positions (no significant coverage, just copy-paste).  Forbes Profile - profiles are never considered reliable sources, and this one primarily contains his citations.  EPravda - no significant, reliable, independent coverage, only a copy-paste of his past positions without notability analysis or other substantial information.  Thus, the person fails WP GNG, ANYBIO and SIGCOV Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is not a good-faith analysis.  The sources (EPravda, Delo, Forbes Kazakhstan and Interfax anyway) are legit, it's not churnalism , there's no evidence they're reprinted press releases.  The Delo article is a four-paragraph profile on a list of top executives, not a "passing mention."  Dclemens1971 ( talk ) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't find any truly significant coverage.  All the sources mention the person only in the context of their new appointment and do not evaluate their notability.  This is not churnalism but a classic reprint of trivial information—he was a manager here, then there, and today was appointed elsewhere.  This does not meet the criteria for significant coverage (Sigcov) and definitely does not help in passing the General Notability Guideline (GNG).  Old-AgedKid ( talk ) 10:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Not the entire article is promotional.  It meets WP:BIO .  Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  DJ InstaMalik ( talk ) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Redirect as I cannot find how the person meets GNG.  The sources are not the best either.  But the problem is with general notability as general managers are not notable by their own.  LusikSnusik ( talk ) 10:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] General managers are not notable by their own, but a general manager who is ranked No. 1 as the best executive in the country, a general manager who has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of him — is notable.  -- Perohanych ( talk ) 13:14, 18 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus