Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evgeny Ponasenkov


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Evgeny Ponasenkov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks self-promoting: most links point to the person’s own websites. No reasonable content. Guldrelokk (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No sign of meeting the notability guidelines for academics. Also way too much mention of the article itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is a combinaion of promotion for his academic articles and complaints about his treatment in Russia WP. WP:NACADEMIC is actually the way to go here because he apparently only sings as a side gig. He does not rise enough above his peers to meet academic notability, with only some basic run-of-the--mill notice. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 02:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion so far seems to have been based on a far too narrow consideration of what might be relevant evidence in this case. The existing article is promotional (perhaps not in the colloquial sense of term, but fairly certainly in the rather wider sense standardly used in AFD discussions), but promotional language can be removed or appropriately revised. It depends too much on sources written by or closely connected with the subject but, provided reliable sources can be found, this is also likely to be correctable. The subject does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC but, while at first sight this is the most obvious WP:SNG, the subject would still be notable if they meet WP:GNG or any other WP:SNG. Also, the previous contributors to this discussion, while they may well have used the standard searches on the article title, show no sign of having taken into account that the subject is a Russian whose life so far seems to have been largely or entirely within Russia and is therefore most likely to appear in Russian-language sources using the Cyrillic alphabet - and searches seem to be far more productive if they use . I would add that, while the section in the article on the subject's Russian Wikipedia entry has no secondary sourcing and should not be there, this is certainly something that could have been mentioned on the article's Talk page - a Google translation of the Russian article certainly shows signs of bias against the subject. But the very fact that Russian Wikipedia contains a long attack article on the subject, rather than no article at all, is certainly suggestive of some kind of notability. In fact, the GScholar results, even in Russian, are poor enough to give no indication that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC (though I would not regard this as completely conclusive, as GScholar results tend to under-report even historians writing in English, and all the major citation indexes seem to work better on work written in English tnan in almost any other language). However, GNews results, so far as I can judge them on almost zero knowledge of Russian, suggest that the subject might well meet WP:GNG - but this would need someone literate in Russian to confirm (or not). PWilkinson (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2018 (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.