Deletion of Stanislav Menshikov

Comment: Google Book Search http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Stanislav+Menshikov&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= shows many print references to, or publications by the individual, unfortunately many are snippet view, and it is not easy to discern which are reliable and independent sources, or which are from some moonbeam press. But http://books.google.com/books?id=eamHPkIkE1UC&pg=PA150&dq=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES calls him "former UN official and staff member of the Communist Central Committee." http://books.google.com/books?id=9kVdNzWA6qMC&pg=PR7&dq=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES says he is of the Russian Academy of Science. He was written about in Newsweek back in 1963http://books.google.com/books?id=xfUGAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&dq=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&pgis=1. The Hoover Institution in 1974 called him "the third ranking member of the Central Committee's International Departmenthttp://books.google.com/books?id=XgMEAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&dq=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&pgis=1."  His co-author Galbreath called him a "http://books.google.com/books?id=remMAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&dq=%22Stanislav+Menshikov%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=100&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&pgis=1 distinguished Soviet economist."These bonafides would  suffice for anyone else to satisfy . We should be in the business of having as complete and accurate an encyclopedia as possible, and not get into a snit because someone who worked on an article touched it and gave the demonstrably notable subject cooties. If the bad guy put POV material or unsourced statements in the article, then edit it from the sources available down to a referenced stub
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: We shouldn't care about what a banned user did - we banned them because they were being disruptive. Deleting what they did merely because they did it merely extends that disruptiveness beyond the ban. So to address the issue at hand: is the subject notable enough for inclusion ()? Probably yes. Certainly if Wikipedia had been around in the late 70s when he was at the UN this wouldn't be an issue, I get the impression there must be many sources from that period
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: It seems very clear to me that G5 speedy deletion is not appropriate in this case: per the ANI discussion, the page was created six months prior to the imposition of the ban, so it is not true that the page creation happened in violation of the ban. I think we should decide this case on the merits of the article rather than |blindly applying rules
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BUREAUCRACY)

Comment: per . The subject clearly meets the standard of , although the article could be improved. Sometimes I think that the goal of building a good encyclopedia ought to take precedence over the ever-important mission of punishing banned users
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR||WP:NOTE)