Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Kunitsyn

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Alexander Kunitsyn}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Alexander Kunitsyn}})

Fails WP:NBIO Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

:https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Russian-Liberalism-Alexander-Intellectual/dp/0230111734 The Emergence of Russian Liberalism: Alexander Kunitsyn in Context, 1783-1840 (Palgrave Studies in Cultural and Intellectual History) 2011th Edition

:https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205611 A. P. Kunitsyn and the Social Movement in Russia under Alexander I

:Probably plenty sources in Russian, here the two ones in English.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Another English-language source: {{cite book|last=Berest|first=Julia|editor1-last=Valliere|editor1-first=Paul|editor2-last=Poole|editor2-first=Randall|contribution=Aleksandr Kunitsyn: Pioneer of natural law in Russia|doi=10.4324/9781003017097-5|pages=92–112|publisher=Routledge|title=Law and the Christian Tradition in Modern Russia|year=2021}} There appear to be plenty of Russian sources. Hard-to-explain AfD; was any external searching for sources performed, as required by WP:BEFORE? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Also puzzled as to how we ended up here. A google search immediately leads to many sources in English. He has an entry in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Jahaza (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Tons of sources demonstrating notability. The journal article provided by {{u|xx236}} states that the subject is "familiar to all readers of Pushkin" and goes on to cover him in detail. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4205611] W42 16:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep – Encyclopedic topics of 20-page journal articles are prima facie notable. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'm seeing a lot of comments about keeping this article and I agree that they could pass WP:GNG but I'm not seeing what the subject of the article has done to pass WP:NBIO. I read some of the chapters from Julia Berest book and all I could really gather from it was that Alexander Kunitsyn's grand accomplishment was taking the works of Kant and bringing them to Russia then he was a professor. Does this article pass WP:GNG, probably it's got two sources. Does this pass WP:SNG? No, he's not notable as per WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. He fails WP:NBIO in that his work is not a widely recognized contribution to the field, people don't cite Kunitsyn they cite Kant. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• :You appear to have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia notability, problematic for someone creating so many AfDs. With rare exceptions (WP:PROF is one, but not one that is relevant here; it is geared towards modern research university professors) Wikipedia notability is not about accomplishments but about sourcing. We have here one English book, two journal articles, and many Russian sources. Is there more than one of them? Are they in-depth? If so you should not be asking what he has done to deserve the attention. The attention itself is what is relevant. If you want Wikipedia notability to be based on accomplishments rather than publicity, I am quite sympathetic to that view, but this sort of individual AfD is not the way. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• ::O no I understand notability perfectly fine. What I don't trust is the Russian sources and the claims they make about this guy. If you remove them he barely passes WP:GNG. We're going to end up keeping this article and that's fine that's how consensus works.
• ::[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46440713 No you Kant: Russians reject German thinker's name for airport]
• ::[https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2003/08/15/2003063835 You name it, the Russians invented it] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: Several encyclopedia entries and coverage in other sources (many of which are easily available) appear to get this over WP:GNG. As stated above, WP:NPROF is generally intended for more modern professors. Curbon7 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: undoubtedly notable person. --Gazal world (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep. Just looking at the three in-depth refs provided by {{u|Xx236}} and {{u|Winner 42}}, WP:GNG is met. Further, they meet the basic criteria of WP:NBIO, {{tq|People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject}}. {{tq|What I don't trust is the Russian sources and the claims they make about this guy.}}- sources in Russia definitely fall under a reliability spectrum. For example, per WP:RSP, Kommersant is generally reliable whereas TASS is generally unreliable. Russia media definitely has various issues, see Internet censorship in Russia, however, the refs are from reliable scholarly journals, thus meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.