Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman K. Kovalev


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Babajobu 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman K. Kovalev
Delete. Not at all notable. Stop submitting articles on people who happen to have a PhD and write for magazines. KNewman 07:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment fixing AfD.--Isotope23 18:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete CSD A7 . I specifically refrain from any assertion that Mr Kovalev isn't notable or that he doesn't meet WP:BIO criteria.  However, this article doesn't assert notability, making it eligible for speedy deletion.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; encyclopedia entries explain why you are reading about their topics, and a bibliography by itself is not an assertion of notability.  Ikkyu2 21:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now: Keep the article in its current, improved form. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * del unless his notability is elaborated upon. --Ghirla | talk 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: He's written a pile of books, that's good enough for WP:BIO. I can't vote delete on that basis, but I'm not voting delete either. Stifle 13:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No vote. He's had a few works published in notable journals (such as this, which claims itself as a leading English-language publication in its subject, and I'm not quite sure about the notability of this one. I also have something by him in a publication by the Archaeological Society of Finland as well as other work here of uncertain notability. I'm just a little uneasy deleting him, as his works seem to cross over into several different languages, and seem to be in various subjects that don't always google well. It might be worth noting that we reference one of his works in our [[Khazars] article. If we delete him, should we remove the reference? Ultimately, I've tried to decide if he's worth keeping, or if he's simply not notable at all. It's been very frustrating. -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Publication record sufficient to demonstrate notability. Monicasdude 18:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Where's tons of books? I see nothing on Amazon.  Doesn't meet professor test IMHO.  —Wknight94 (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seven days and still no one explains his notability.  A list of books satisfies WP:BIO but notability still needs to be asserted somehow.  I say speedy A7 him; if an editor who actually knows him to be notable comes along, there'll be a nice big place in the namespace just waiting for the encyclopedic article that this isn't.   ikkyu2  ( talk ) 05:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has someone claimed a list of books? I see a list of journal articles.  One person on this Afd has claimed a list of books but that's a mistaken assumption from what I've seen so far. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete . Non-notable. --Khoikhoi 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Convinced by Briangotts. ;) --Khoikhoi 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This person is a rising star in the field of Eurasian nomad studies. He has written a solid array of articles. The article has now been updated to reflect his work on the Spilling horde coins, the most comprehensive to date. He has been instrumental in understanding Eurasian steppe economics and history. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems notable enough for me. Is it really preferable to have his name as a redlink? The burden is on those who insist on delete (or even speedy delete) to explain what is the hurry. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Glad to have somebody who was able to find more information. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient evidence. Seems to be often referenced. And all the arguments above. --Stux 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tim Rhymeless and Ikkyu. Tom e rtalk  23:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. gidonb 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain: Well, I'd still like to see a connection between the claims in the new paragraphs and which articles they come from - and maybe some commentary from other experts on how Kovalev discovered these things - but I'll change my vote to abstain for the hard work put in. Keep it up!  :)  You have to admit it's a lot nicer to have actual clear explanations here of what he has achieved as opposed to a giant list of journal contributions that I'll never look up.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems that Googling for Roman K. Kovalev reveals that he is a notable academic. IZAK 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough to me, as arguments above and Google test indicate. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:18, 21 February 2006 (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.