Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Zalmanov

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. --BDD (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Zalmanov

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

No evidence of notability. No high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Ochiwar (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is likely that is covered by sources in Russian. Or if there is no consensus to keep it, it should be moved to draft space per WP:PRESERVE - there are no concerns of COPYVIO nor BLP). Diego (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as single-sourced hoax. There's almost no testimony for this guy other than the promotion of a quack treatment (see above) and given that he died in Paris fifty years ago, there should be western sources. All I see are a couple of passing references to his name in Italian which do not have an obvious connection to the treatment being pushed in this article. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, there are some western sources - one has to remember that a Russian living in France is likely to have transliterated his name according to French conventions. So try Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Though having said that, I'm not sure how good the sources really are. PWilkinson (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked those too, and didn't find enough that way either. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if the method he invented works, there is no treatment of him in secondary sources. Wikipedia does not have an article on every patentholder nor every doctor who has invented a surgical technique, and it certainly shouldn't have one on a dead snake-oil salesman who doesn't even pass WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (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.