Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case of Arakcheev and Khudyakov

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. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Arakcheev and Khudyakov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: The article has now been mnoved to Case of Arakcheev and Khudyakov. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was originally opened when the article was at Case of arakcheev and khudyakov - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be in Wikinews,not in Wikipedia,as this is not a encyclopedic content.Moreover a google search for this gives nothing.Or this might be a complete hoax.Dipankan001 (talk) 12:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it should be deleted from Wikipedia.Dipankan001 (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, it is not a hoax, just google it on a Russian or look at Russian wikipage. Secondly, it is a long-standing case with a great interest in Russian society (most people compare it with well-known Dreyfus affair). Thirdly, this case now in the European Court of Human Rights, so English version of this page has a good reasons. So, I ask to not delete this page, because I plan to expand it with links and materials.--Alexmarkov (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article be kept, you should start by adding references citing reliable sources. It does not matter if they are in Russian as long as they are reliable sources, such as Novye Izvestia. --Lambiam 19:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands now, it should be deleted per WP:BLP. There are no references at all, while the article makes serious allegations. It also should be seriously edited by a someone with a sufficient level of English, otherwise it might as well be deleted for WP:NONSENSE. - DonCalo (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable, plenty of reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. Next to the Russian-language results of the Google search mentioned above, here is a search giving English-language sources. --Lambiam 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources. see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say this appears to meet WP:N/CA. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good article, don't see why it should be deleted. mixer (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs to be rewritten, should be renamed Arakcheev and Khudyakov case, otherwise a perfectly acceptable subject for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. WP:BEFORE may be relevant here, as the notability (and actual existence) of the subject is clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The footnotes have been given,and when it was nominated,it wasn't there.So now it could be improved by simple editing.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can you say you didn't found anything on Google? Do you think that English is the same language as Russian? Note that this is not the first case that a nominator doesn't search on Russian Google, yandex or rambler. Calling it a "hoax" is ridiculous; if you think it is a hoax, why you didn't speedied under WP:G3? It was reported on many newspapers; references are reliable; case is notable; snow keep?.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 16:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.