Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viktor Muravin


 * 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   Never mind, sources were added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Viktor Muravin

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

No reliable sources found in Books or Scholar. Seems to be borderline. Taking here for consensus mainly, given that it was A7'd once and re-tagged for speedy several times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * comment: just judging by the number of second hand copies floating about on bookseller websites I'd say there's a good chance there are proper references for this somewhere, it's just not on the web or anywhere else that's indexed and easily accessible. --fvw *  23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; As with everything else, the ultimate question must be whether or not the proposed action makes Wikipedia better. I fail to see how deleting this article would make Wikipedia better.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How does an uncategorized microstub make Wikipedia better? Put a little effort into it. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This particular one counters Systematic bias (and uncategorized stubs can be categorized and expanded relatively easily). I agree with fvw that it's likely this guy is notable. Any chance you run this past the Russian WikiProject just to make sure? - Mgm|(talk) 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Dropped a note at WP:RUSSIA. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because more information is necessarily better than less information. Does that even need to be said?  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 02:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe. There is such a thing as too much. There's also a thing called effort, like I said. "_____ is a _____" is about the bare minimum you can put in an article, even moreso if you forget things like categories and sources. I know that you think notability is a crock, but (at least in my opinion) an article should at least give an inkling of why they warrant an article, besides just "they exist(ed)". Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:13, 14 December 2008 (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.