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. Tawker (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Deunov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article has had issues of sourcing since creation and has been tagged for nearly seven years without being fixed. The sources that are cited are largely unreliable, the article reads as a personal essay mixed with fandom. This and the related Paneurhythmy document a minor sect of Steinerism, and do it rather badly. There's no evidence that Deunov has any significance beyond paneurythmy, and precious little evidence that paneurythmy itself is actually significant. Both serve at present as vehicles to promote fringe nonsense. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There appears to be no serious scholarship about this guy, and even if there were, the current article is in such a state that it needs the WP:NUKEANDPAVE treatment. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources are extant to find out whether he can pass WP:BIO. jps (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or WP:NUKE to stub, if reliable sources can be identified. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find any reliable sources that discuss him. Goblin Face (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Two things that could do with a bit of consideration before deleting the article: firstly, the corresponding article on Bulgarian Wikipedia contains a very large number of references - I rather suspect that most or all of them are unreliable, but I would like someone with a knowledge of Bulgarian to confirm whether or not there are sufficient reliable sources there that could be used in an article here. Also, an alternative transliteration (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) seems to give a rather higher proportion of non-fringe sources, though I am not sure that any are particularly substantial. PWilkinson (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If coverage by reliable secondary sources that are independent of Deunov should be found, then an article can be recreated in proportion to that coverage. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (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.