Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Kufayev


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Igor Kufayev

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe this doesn't pass WP:BIO. The subject does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles, except for 2 reviews, the only other sources seem self published. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.64.239 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable, and interesting..Modernist (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep to be  inspiring  and  fascinating   the subject does not  have to be a future of  articles  from  the  media  Mahasidhi 11:53, 10 March 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahasidhi (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. The two reviews mentioned by the nominator are in The Independent, one of the United Kingdom's four serious national general newspapers, and by Brian Sewell, the country's best-known art critic (although not one of my favourites). There's no need to look any further for notability when we have two such sources. Of course any content that can't be sourced can be removed from the article, but that's not a reason for deletion, just editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. The article certainly needs cleaning up.  Ty  01:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it has references, and should be kept, only items not showing source should be removed, such as the "Spiritual transformation" section, otherwise it just needs a little bit more work.-- Arty pants, Babble 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems notable to me.--Judo112 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2009 (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.