Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Nikolayevich Belousov
Per Nom, User:TheLongTone, and the ''editor that has moved the article to a non-notable title'', without discussion here or on the talk page, without consensus, ''and removed the maintenance tags without discussion''. As a ''(cosmonaut)'' this subject is certainly not notable. Making |"comparisons to other articles to show there is bias might be in good faith but is invalid. I am making no decision based on the nationality nor ethnicity of the subject. A 2017 tag called into question the notability of the subject, which has not been resolved, even though the tag has now been improperly removed. When notability is an issue then "keep" comments like ''"He is actually well known. One can find any number of RS about him."'' is not a credible rationale. |NPOSSIBLE states, {{tq|However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.}} The criteria for inclusion is based on multiple |reliable and Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources|independent sources. The reason we have sourcing guidelines is to be able to |"prove" notability exists. A problem is that being a cosmonaut (or astronaut) is not a valid criteria for automatic inclusion. A search of https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The+Secrets+of+Military+Cosmonautics ''The Secrets of Military Cosmonautics'' (Google books) did not bring up anything I could source to the subject. Any wishing to show notability for inclusion should provide more than a name, like a page number (proper sourcing), so a possible inline citation can be used. Just listing the names of works, that are likely not about the subject, does not satisfy GNG or any other notability criteria. I mean this in the nicest of ways but I don't know anything about the Russian encyclopedia, the "Russian entry" there, or the sourcing criteria. If we are going to translate articles from there to here there should be more than a |pseudo biography, |dictionary entry or a name with |primary sources. We are not required to assume an entry is notable because it is covered somewhere else. On the English Wikipedia Wikipedia:Notability (people)|{{tq|the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.}}, and this is evidenced by our sourcing criteria
— User:Otr500, 10:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:NPOSSIBLE||WP:RS||WP:PROVEIT||WP:PSEUDO||WP:NOTADICTIONARY||WP:PRIMARY (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)