Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Duvanov

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sergei Duvanov

Sergei Duvanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

AfD by an account which I have since blocked for vandalism of this article and for subsequent IP sockpuppetry. Would however be useful to get community view on this and the associated article as to whether they are independently notable or should be mentioned as part of another article (i.e. Kazakhgate). I am neutral. Black Kite 11:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It looks legitimate to me - the name comes up widely in Google, on both human rights and news websites. He appears to be associated with Kazakhgate and some of the human rights orgs make the suggestion that charges are politically motivated. I think he probably should qualify under notability criteria (re incorporation to the other article - He's probably highly notable in his own country and I think we probably tend to downweight events from non-english speaking countries). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage in the media as found by Google News search is quite sufficient to establish notability. In addition to the sources currently in the article, it's worth mentioning an article in The Economist about him, regrettably requiring payment. Favonian (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep An article in the Economist!! talk about reputable secondary sources. David V Houston (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

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.