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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 May 23.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrey Davydov[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable fringe/crackpot writer, full of self-published works and utter nonsense which has apparently not gained traction sufficient to make him a notable fringe writer. So: both shameless advertisement AND non-notable BLP. Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Was thinking of nominating this myself, for the reasons above. Clearly WP:PROMO, and most references are to his own books, which are primary sources. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Article on a promoter of fringe theories that lacks the quality of sources we require for fringe theorist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - if it's true he was granted political asylum because of persecution from the FSB that would general signal notability, but this is highly dubious/silly. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- reply - extraordinary claims require especially solid sourcing; no sign of anything of the sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orangemike: Wholly agree; sounds bogus. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. WP:FRINGE subjects need in-depth mainstream sources to provide a suitably neutral view of them, and no such sources are in evidence here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I am suspicious that everything in English in his list of works seems to be published by HPA Press. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.