- 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rodion Azarkhin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced BLP - although this person may well be notable there is nothing to verify the claims made in the article. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The claims made in the article are by no means defamatory, which is the only case when BLP concerns are a problem for us. A quick search shows the person is notable; there is an entry about him in the Musical Encyclopedia, which also cites a couple offline sources. The article needs a lot of work, but definitely not deletion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 18:01 (UTC)
- CommentI would encourage you - especially as a sysop - to re-read the BLP guidelines. It states that all contentious claims - which in this case does not mean defamatory but instead claims which demand proof (such as being a pupil of so many great men). This does not satisfy WP:V either which demands evidence of all noteworthy claims. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contentious claims is precisely why I bothered to throw in a ref. On the other hand, the whole point of the BLP guidelines is to safeguard the foundation from legal trouble. Declaring someone to be a pupil of so many great men may be "contentious", but hardly a cause for alarm. Tagging the passages you find dubious with "citation needed" is quite sufficient—what's the point of deleting it? If I knew more about this person (or at least had access to Russian libraries), I would have referenced this article in and out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 21:44 (UTC)
- Comment - The point of deleting it, as I have stated in my above response - is that it fails WP:V and as such falls short of the standards we set for article's inclusion in the project. It's not punitive. If he is notable then fantastic! If we can verify the claims made in the article with multiple, reliable sources, then great! I will happily withdraw. But that doesn't mean that contentious in this respect can be interpreted in such a way as to save the article in its current state, nor does it mean that we can ignore WP:V when we feel like it. The standards exist for a reason and if we start ignoring them for one article we run the risk of ignoring them for the rest. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I don't get is why you keep saying that the article fails WP:V after I have supplied a source which verifies most of the claims you had a problem with in the first place? Notability concerns I can understand, but with a source in place, the verifiability is indisputable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)
- Comment - The point of deleting it, as I have stated in my above response - is that it fails WP:V and as such falls short of the standards we set for article's inclusion in the project. It's not punitive. If he is notable then fantastic! If we can verify the claims made in the article with multiple, reliable sources, then great! I will happily withdraw. But that doesn't mean that contentious in this respect can be interpreted in such a way as to save the article in its current state, nor does it mean that we can ignore WP:V when we feel like it. The standards exist for a reason and if we start ignoring them for one article we run the risk of ignoring them for the rest. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 22:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contentious claims is precisely why I bothered to throw in a ref. On the other hand, the whole point of the BLP guidelines is to safeguard the foundation from legal trouble. Declaring someone to be a pupil of so many great men may be "contentious", but hardly a cause for alarm. Tagging the passages you find dubious with "citation needed" is quite sufficient—what's the point of deleting it? If I knew more about this person (or at least had access to Russian libraries), I would have referenced this article in and out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 21:44 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources are found, and I'm leaning towards speedy delete. My search shows no sources from Google, and to be honest I'm having trouble even spotting an assertion of importance, let alone proof of notability. As for 'The Musical Encyclopaedia', the mirror entry you linked to has no sources listed that I can see (offline or online), and the Music Encyclopaedia itself doesn't have an entry on him at all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the ref I have supplied? There's plenty more where that came from...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 25, 2011; 21:44 (UTC)
- Could you supply some more, so we have multiple reliable ones, and can forgo the AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That, unfortunately, is the problem. I can find several sources which are basically rip-offs of reliable sources, but are not themselves reliable (here's an example). It shows rather well that reliable sources exist, but getting to them requires either someone more knowledgeable about the subject matter, or someone who with access to good Russian libraries. I myself do not fall into either of these groups.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)
- Could you supply some more, so we have multiple reliable ones, and can forgo the AfD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Could we please have full disclosure of any relationship between editors commenting here, in order to eliminate any suspicion of meatpuppetry? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Searching in Cyrillic finds another encyclopedia entry and coverage in a magazine published by the Soviet Ministry of Culture. For those who prefer the Roman alphabet and the English language we can find that there are several pages of coverage in Double Bassist magazine, and an in memoriam piece in Bass World, which seals the notability deal. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thought I'd do a search for Greek and Turkish articles just in case that might help. His name has also been spelt Radion Azarkin (probably incorrectly but the "h" would automatically be dropped from his surname in any Greek translation). This alternative spelling appears in a number of articles. Including this English language article where a Turkish conductor lists him amongst notable musicians that he has worked with:
- http://www.orionproduction.com/En/KlskBtDtl.aspx?ID=88 (and a Turkish language article also
- http://www.bodrum.bel.tr/haberdetay.asp?id=1029 ).
- Have added a couple of good references to the article to make it keep-worthy. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:41, 2 February 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.