Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergey V. Arzhanukhin


 * 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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sergey V. Arzhanukhin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable philosopher. Only non-english sources. Nothing to indicate significance. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The Russian sources (which are not an argument for deletion, see WP:RSUE) include entries in two reliable encyclopaedias, which meets the GNG in my book. The article itself obviously needs work. Joe Roe (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources in the article, as explained by Joe. I would urge the nominator to slow down, take notice of what other people say, and think before nominating articles for deletion. Several editors have already mentioned the invalid rationales, such as "only non-English sources", that accompany many of that editor's deletion nominations. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the sources are in Russian is not a valid argument for deletion. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 20:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The "non-Englishness" of the sources are not grounds for deletion and I think Joe Roe makes a good argument for notability in the above comments. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2016 (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.