Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstantin Monastyrsky

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 delete. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Monastyrsky

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

Non-notable. All citations are from his own sites or from a blog. Softlavender (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources included on the BLP are not reliable and self-published. Meatsgains (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried and failed to find any independent secondary sources as per the
WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks like Okna DeskTop Set may be notable and worth an article[1], but I don't see that Monastyrsky is. Maybe he'll become a famous writer, but too soon.--
talk) 15:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

There are a few more sources in Proquest Historical Newspapers, but still not enough.--

talk) 15:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Does not look like notable at all based on the single third party source currently used on this page [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A link pointing out that the subject is on the
neutral. Unfortunately in this case there are not reliable sources that appear to confer much notability at all, regardless of whether they are mainstream or fringe. Instead we have four footnotes to the subject's own sites, and one skeptic blog of dubious reliability. That's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The article relies heavily on primary sources. Not a single
reliable source.Pixarh (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2015 (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.