Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manvel Gasratian


 * 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) f  eminist  04:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Manvel Gasratian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unproven notability. Unreferenced article since 2008. XXN, 15:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment There is now minimal sourcing showing him as a renowned Turkologist and Kurdologist. If kept, the article should probably be moved to Manvel Gasratjan as the better transliteration from the Cyrillic. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * About renaming, see WP:RUS. XXN, 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As he was an academic with scholarly publications before 1995, I think the first three columns of Romanization_of_Russian are more helpful than the essay in this instance. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep after improved sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep the current article, although a stub, sufficiently demonstrates notability as a scholar. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, due to current form but has promise and meets standard for GNG given what is stated, even if it is limited. Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * More exactly what makes him notable? Probably he is important and "renowned" (how it's stated now in article), but is he notable? XXN, 21:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It is often impossible to judge notability of stub articles (such as this). Since his writings will have been in Russian, a lack of English-language sources is unsurprising.  What does the Russian WP have?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ru-wiki doesn't have an article on him. I've managed to turn up a few Russian sources, but it's always difficult to judge their reliability. I'll try and sift through them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know, but an academician may well be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's a scholar who wrote in Russian pre-internet and pre-1991, so satisfying WP:PROF in the usual ways isn't going to happen. That said it does look like he made a significant impact in his field (Kurdish studies), even if sourcing is a pain in the arse. We have the one English-language source that describes him as "renowned". As far as Russian sources go, he has an entry in the Biographical Archive of the Soviet Union, but I haven't been able to access it, and a very brief entry in this 2017 index of Turkish scholars . There is also a more detailed biography in this online encyclopaedia , but I don't know how reliable that is, and two blog posts describing a symposium organised in his memory at the Institute of Oriental Studies and an obituary written about him in a Kurdish publication (which seems to have disappeared unfortunately) . Again, they're not RSes, but they're suggestive. I think someone with better Russian and better access to offline sources like the BASU could make a decent biography out of this. There may well be additional sources available in Turkish or Kurdish. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (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.