Deletion of Cyrillization of Arabic

Comment: Cyrillization of Arabic and I have a thought/suggestion. Although it has no reference now it is verifiable academic topic which no educated person can doubt. Its https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BF%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F Russian version is well sourced and have many print sources. Also this concept is treated in many academic books by respected academic publishers, Oxford UP, Routledge and others. The nomination reason is also  invalid reason for deletion. Please see |the valid reasons for AfD. First reason is one-word "Unsourced", not only this is invalid deletion reason the article has many sources in Russian version, and we don't delete content that are verifiable and unsourced per guideline . the second reason is also empty, we don't deal with probable on Wikipedia we deal on verifiable. The nom is not certain it is OR, but he is merely thinking. When he is sure, he can renomite with detailed reason and evidence. I am also calling for this AfD to be unbundled, because it hinder fair assessment of each article's merit. And no strong valid reason for deletion. If the nom wishes he can nominate each article with detailed, clear and |valid reason for deletion. I am saying this because all these topic are academic concepts not trivial local musician bio or village market that we can summarily delete after few delete, delete vote
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL1||WP:NEXIST||WP:DEL1)