Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Dvorkin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Dvorkin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability So it comes back to whether being listed by the CoS website gives notability, or whether being one of many people named in a failed lawsuit gives notability. I'd say no. Scott Mac 15:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He's the leader of an anti-cult group Saint Ireneus of Lyons Informational Consultative Center - which doesn't have its own article.
 * He's "appeared" on Russian TV - I bet so have millions
 * He's a critic of scientology - who isn't?


 * Strong Keep : Clearly notable individual, per WP:GNG standards and also per impact in his field. Just follow the links in the template above: you'll find plenty of coverage in books (e.g.,, (where he is called the "most prominent fighter of the totalitarian sects"). The news coverage is also outstanding; here he is called "a leading critic of sects". In short, he is no run-of-the-mill fellow, he is apparently the most important critic of sects in Russia, with plenty of sources to demonstrate it. -- Cycl o pia  talk  16:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A few flattering remarks in passing sources doesn't establish notability? What has he done? What's his acheivments? What controversies has he sparked? And where is HE discussed in any more than a passing mention. Counting sources on Goggle is no way to justify or improve an article. I can google almost anything and say "x hits". What we need is material indicating some concrete significance. Is there any?--Scott Mac 16:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, being one of the most important critic of sects in his (quite large) country, and thus being regularly interviewed and quoted by books and news in this position, is enough for me -and for any reasonable person, I'd say. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This source may be useful as it what An American Academic Sees about him. Rather than he says she says type thing we have right now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Russian article cites close to 100 sources and runs to more than 6,500 words. He is controversial and notable as a major player in Russia. -- JN 466  16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this article does need some attention, since the sources are out there but not being used in the article. His activities, the failed lawsuit, and the organization he belongs to provides enough evidence for WP:N (he is not known for only one event or one activity).Coffeepusher (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This isn't about the number of Google hits, it is about the quality of what reliable sources say about him. On July 17, 2007, for example, the Washington Post said that he was "a Moscow academic and one of Russia's leading specialists on new religions".  There were three book sources in the article at the time of nomination, all with ISBN numbers.  Other editors have uncovered reliable sources.  He's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, prolific writer and academic who has also been the subject of WP:RS secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Academic Fringe? Yes... Critic of Scientology? Yes... Notable for the right reasons? probably not... Meets WP:ACADEMIC? You betcha... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Neutrality in Scientology deletion discussions.  Will Beback   talk    00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Whenever the view of people who participate in this AFD, please feel free to join in the effort at Neutrality in Scientology--Scott Mac 01:13, 13 January 2011 (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.