Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxim Suvorov

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Suvorov[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This reference indicates that Suvorov played an important role in systematizing writing and instruction in Serbian after attempts at assimilation by Austria, also playing a role in promoting Russian influence. Butler (1970), "The war for a Serbian Language and Orthography", Harvard Slavic Studies - Volume 5 24.151.56.107 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Firestar464 (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is perhasp not a satisfactory article, but the person who systematised Serbian as a literary language certainly ought to be significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could benefit from more sources and content, but I vote to keep this article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- The reference provided in the article appears to be a biographical encyclopedia. (I needed to translate the page to English, so I can't say for sure, but I'm confident it's a tertiary source.) Tertiary sources, by themselves, generally do not establish notability. (See WP:N, stating that sources that establish notability should be secondary.) The Butler reference cited in the comment above appears to be merely a trivial reference. WP:BIO requires that coverage in any given source must be "significant" or "substantial". WP:BIO also requires that "multiple" sources be provided, yet at this time we can find only one secondary source. (Again, we should ignore the encyclopedia.) Edge3 (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While secondary sources are preferred for article development, policy is clear: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability..." WP:PSTS. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've been convinced by the other participants in this discussion. I change my recommendation, and I agree that we should keep the article. Edge3 (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO, people who are included in biographical encyclopaedias are considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia as well. He also passes WP:GNG, with SIGCOV provided in sources here and here. Also, keep in mind that sources are very likely to exist in languages other than English. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't let's get bogged down in definitions of secondary and tertiary sources when this is quite obviously a suitable historical subject for an encyclopedia article, per books written in both the Roman and Cyrillic alphabets. The nominator here tagged the article as an unsourced BLP, when it's neither unsourced nor a BLP, thus demonstrating a failure to even read the article properly, and made this request for speedy deletion, which is simply ridiculous. Can't we just have some idea of what belongs in an encyclopedia? Or should we just restrict ourselves to topics that are currently trending on social media sites? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ANYBIO. A quick google search in English yields this paper (among others) from the Serbian Academy of Science and Arts which describes him among one of the most famous Russian teachers in Serbia which contributed to Russification of the region. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:49, 27 November 2020 (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.