Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitry Puchkov


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dmitry Puchkov

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article doesn't meet the notability requirement for biographies (WP:BIO). All references are to Russian web sites. If anything, it should be on the Russian Wikipedia. Has anyone who doesn't speak Russian ever heard of Dmitry Puchkov? Faustus 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Are you saying that only Russian-speakers should know about these things? Is it not the purpose of Wikipedia to inform people of things they may not know? Chronolegion 12:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't phrase the reasons clearly. The main problem with the article is that it does not meet the notability requirements specified in WP:BIO. The Russian references comment's purpose is to demonstrate this. Faustus 12:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Delete , translator that goofes up, without secondary non-trivial sources (at least as far as my three words of Russian can establish), thereby failing WP:N and WP:A Alf Photoman  13:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by Tikiwont.  Alf Photoman  16:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added two English sources. --Tikiwont 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions.   --   &rArr; bsnowball  08:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the guy is reasonobly notable Alex Bakharev 09:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - he is very popular, and not only in Russia. I saw his books and films in London/Toronto/Frakfurt. I easily could compare him to Michael Moore or Mel Brooks by notability. - Vald 11:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep if some of these translations could be identified and cited. The articles seems to have a problem with NPOV, but there will be time for that when it is kept. DGG 05:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you, please, elaborate on "identified and cited"? Chronolegion 11:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments made above. RFerreira 03:20, 20 March 2007 (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.