Deletion of Evgeny Ponasenkov

Comment: The article is a combinaion of promotion for his academic articles and complaints about his treatment in Russia WP.  is actually the way to go here because he apparently only sings as a side gig. He does not rise enough above his peers to meet academic notability, with only some basic run-of-the--mill notice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: This discussion so far seems to have been based on a far too narrow consideration of what might be relevant evidence in this case. The existing article is  promotional (perhaps not in the colloquial sense of term, but fairly certainly in the rather wider sense standardly used in AFD discussions), but promotional language can be removed or appropriately revised. It depends too much on sources written by or closely connected with the subject but, provided reliable sources can be found, this is also likely to be correctable. The subject does not seem to meet  but, while at first sight this is the most obvious , the subject would still be notable if they meet  or any other . Also, the previous contributors to this discussion, while they may well have used the standard searches on the article title, show no sign of having taken into account that the subject is a Russian whose life so far seems to have been largely or entirely within Russia and is therefore most likely to appear in Russian-language sources using the Cyrillic alphabet - and searches seem to be far more productive if they use ({{Find sources AFD|Евгений Понасенков}}). I would add that, while the section in the article on the subject's Russian Wikipedia entry has no secondary sourcing and should not be there, this is certainly something that could have been mentioned on the article's Talk page - a Google translation of the Russian article certainly shows signs of bias against the subject. But the very fact that Russian Wikipedia contains a long attack article on the subject, rather than no article at all, is certainly suggestive of some kind of notability. In fact, the GScholar results, even in Russian, are poor enough to give no indication that the subject meets  (though I would not regard this as completely conclusive, as GScholar results tend to under-report even historians writing in English, and all the major citation indexes seem to work better on work written in English tnan in almost any other language). However, GNews results, so far as I can judge them on almost zero knowledge of Russian, suggest that the subject might well meet  - but this would need someone literate in Russian to confirm (or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC||WP:SNG||WP:GNG||WP:SNG||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:GNG)