Agafodor: Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT .  No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , on the grounds that while Агафодо́р might be notable in Russian, Agafodor isn't in English.  Hence, Agafodor isn't warranted here.  I also note that there are no notable people on Wikipedia with the first name Agafodor.  Klbrain ( talk ) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The name is the Russian form of Agathodorus and of it:Agatodoro .  Agathodorus (Preobrazhensky) ru:Агафодор (Преображенский) (1837–1919), a Russian Orthodox bishop, is the subject of an article in the Russian Wikipedia and seems to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, even if there is no English Wikipedia article about him yet.  The Russian page lists three Christian martyrs by that name ( Agathodorus , a saint, is the subject of an article in the English Wikipedia) and Agathodor (Markevich), abbot of the Donskoy Monastery from 1991 to 2009 (no article, so I can't readily say that the person is notable).  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Christianity ,  and Russia .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, dictionaries.  If an article can be sourced only to dictionaries then I’m pretty sure it’s not likely to be notable.  Even if the bishop is notable, we’d need at least two articles to meet WP:NNAME .  I’ll look into the other people further when I have access to my computer.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  00:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Doesn’t satisfy notability requirements due to not being notable.  Mr Mangina ( talk ) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hello, Mr Mangina , you just registered your account today.  How did you come to find this AFD discussion on your third edit?  Deletion discussions are typically not the first thing new editors participate in.  Thank you.  L iz Read!  Talk!  23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if I do think it should be deleted, I have to agree that this is strange.  The argument is essentially "it's not notable because it's not notable".  Maybe they saw the AfD and decided to make an account to comment on it?  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Per nom.  Fails relevant notability criteria.  Certain individual with this name might be notable, but that doesn't make the name itself notable.  Yilloslime ( talk ) 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly.  If the bishop is even created then I suppose we could redirect it there.  AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk ) 02:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to lack of SIGCOV that establishes notability.  ~ Pbritti ( talk ) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete