Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Liiv

:{{la|Otto Liiv}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Otto Liiv}})

Few sources exist to support an article. TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- this might be an article where few sources exist on-line but with some effort one could find off-line sources. I don't intend to look myself, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep -- Looks like a notable academci to me. Since he was Estonian and was last at work over 60 years ago, I am not surprised that sources are hard to find. I do not think USSR encouraged reasearch and writign on prominent people in nations it forceably incorporated into itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There are enough sources for WP:V, there's a plausible case for WP:PROF#C7 as editor of what still seems to be the main Estonian history journal, and the postage stamp is strong evidence for general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very weak keep, mostly on procedural grounds. "Too few sources" is not a reason for deletion. Notability might be, though. --Sander Säde 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Head of a national archives is a sufficiently important position for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2012 (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.