Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Livadny


 * 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 no consensus, improving sounds good. Daniel (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrey Livadny

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable,not published in English, can't find any books by this author in English, Google hits are echoes of this article. Wtshymanski (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not commenting on notability one way or another at this point, but it doesn't matter if his works aren't published in English; that's not an indication of whether or not he would be notable, because he could be very notable elsewhere in the world. matt91486 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A prolific and notable author. The fact that he writes in Russian doesn't detract from his notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No hits on Google Books, Google News or Google Scholar. Not notable according to Wikipedia standards. If reliable sources can be added, I could change my mind. (Mind meal (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Comment. Please see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9+%D0%9B%D1%8C%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87+%D0%9B%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%22&btnG=Search for a Google search on his name in Russian. --Eastmain (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Prolific, yes, and a certain number of comments in Russian blogs. no evidence in that ruG list of any reviews or prizes. If there are, it will need someone more proficient in the language to find them. DGG (talk) 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep as per above AfD - invalid nomination. Fosnez (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. IMO an established author, notable enough for inclusion. The fact he is poorly known in Anglophone world isn't a worthy reason for prodding. --Brand спойт 15:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and improve stump Logastellus (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2008 (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.