Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatoly Wasserman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was KEEP, WP:SNOW. As explained sufficiently by the commenters below, the deletion arguments are based on a misunderstanding of both WP:V and WP:OR regarding reliance on non-English sources, and there is no legitimate question raised as to whether notability is satisfied. postdlf (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Wasserman[edit]

Anatoly Wasserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Notability - No valid references, stated notability is that he appeared on a Russian game show. Anons continue to delete maint. tags. Lexlex (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every reference is in Russian. Looking him up finds a couple of YouTube videos of him speaking in Russian about various political things - and while he may be potentially notable in Russia as a political pundit, because he has no coverage or references in English media it seems odd to have this page on the English Wikipedia. Lexlex (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia is not only about things notable in English-speaking world. It's just a Wikipedia written in English, and ideally should cover all the things found in other Wikipedias (and vice versa). 79.139.233.45 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter and 79.139.233.45, I'm having difficulties with understanding what your arguments for keeping this English entry on Wasserman are. Surely this is a forum for presenting reasons for keeping the entry. 'Ideals' are of no consequence. If any of the Wikipedias are to be taken seriously as an online resource, they must adhere to standards of information of consequence to the readers in their language/s. As it stands, this entry in English doesn't provide any information of substance. On the contrary: it is confusing! I consider it requisite that details pertaining to the nature of his notability be provided. Without such details, all this entry amounts to is an acknowledgement of the fact of his existence without a context for an English speaker to comprehend what it is that makes him notable. All I've managed to establish is that he is of some sort of obscure regional interest to an unknown quantity of Russian speakers for reasons difficult to decipher. Why is he of interest/a notable? If this can be explained coherently in English, it might go towards giving you a case for retaining the entry by elaborating on it. Ideals are a sloppy excuse for retaining entries. Wikipedia is being cleaned up in order to raise its credibility. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable because he got sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A cult figure in Russia, not so much as a political figure, but rather as a media personality and a living legend (and, recently, as a target of Internet memes). The article can be expanded using the Russian version, which contains some more references to Internet resources (though not to printed media, as the present article does). 79.139.233.45 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you have used the emotionally charged term 'living legend', could you please elaborate on what it is that constitutes such a title? If Wasserman is a celebrity of such significance that he be given anything other than a redirect to the Russian version of the entry on him, it is essential that the issues surrounding his celebrity be expanded on in order to make the entry relevant to the English speaking world. Could you, for example, please expand on what are the Internet memes relate to? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As it stands, with no references in English and nothing verifiable, I'm just not seeing it. A cult figure in Russia? Why are there no cites about this guy in English anywhere? If he's not notable enough for *any* English media to write about it, any attempt to use Russian cites could classify as WP:Original Research as translations are inherently subjective. It's not Wikipedia's job to do this. Tell me why I'm wrong. I've never come across this situation before and am curious if anyone else has: all reference in another language only. Perhaps a redirect to the Russian version? What's the standard practice? Lexlex (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you wish: You are wrong. There are no single line in the policies whuch says that only subjects whuch have sources in English are notable. If you can not read Russian, it does not mean sources in Russian are not verifiable. I can, and I see what is written there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! ;) I meant tell me WHY I am wrong, not that I am wrong. Seriously, though, this is the English language Wikipedia. There is a Russian language Wikipedia for this purpose. If he has no cites in English, why does he need to be on the English version and not just the Russian one? Lexlex (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has to be on both. Ley us wait for the closing admin, I hope they know what the policies are.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if I were to close this as a sysop, right now, I'd delete it. The problem is verifiability. Unless someone can find at least two or three translations from reliable sources, I have no way of even telling if this man ever lived. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the nominator misrepresents the stated notability of the subject "on a Russian game show" singular (emphasis mine) when in fact it states "a frequent winner of intellectual TV games" plural and frequent. Compare to Ken Jennings who won a single intellectual TV game multiple times for notability. Additionally there is no requirement that reference be in English, by the same logic that all reference do not need to be available in the personal library of all readers of Wikipedia. References need to exist and be verifiable, not easily accessible to all. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you've undermined your own argument for keeping the English entry. As regards Ken Jennings, the entry is in English and, for some reason, German. There are no entries for him in any other languages. This is a reflection of the fact that Jennings is a regional celebrity and, even more specifically, reflects the fact that he is only relevant to the English speaking world. To add to this, the entry is comprehensive. Unless the English version of the Wasserman article is elaborated on, his celebrity makes no sense to the English speaking world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The logic does not follow, if it's notable enough to be in the English Wikipedia then citable references in English need to exist. If you can't find any, then you need to wait for them to appear before making the article. As for this subject, he may be a star in Russia, but until you find an English reference that says he is, the references are not verifiable by the majority of editors and therefore not acceptable for submission. I think it's pretty clearly a delete candidate at this time. Again, this will change if he becomes notable in the English speaking world, but as of this moment, based on the information we have, he is not and fails the WP:Notability test. Lexlex (talk) 13:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum - My bad, WP:NOENG states that translations can be used if no English version is available - but translations must be provided to use the source. I guess it's up to the article editors to fix it. As it stands at this point, the cites are not valid. Lexlex (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it does not say that translations must be provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy" - My bad again, however I'd say an AFD is a pretty clear indication of a question arising in regard to verifiability. Lexlex (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what the WP:GNG, WP:NONENG, and the WP:TRANSLATION subsection of WP:NOR about the validity of using non-English sources. There are no violations here, and the English Wikipedia is intended to have articles in English about every encyclopedic subject of interest everywhere. This isn't Wikipedia-for-English-speakers-only. This is Wikipedia-for-everyone, and happens to be written in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the primary reason for deleting is the lack of English language sources, there's nothing at Wikipedia that forbids the use of non-English sources for any reason, especially where English sources aren't available. If they are, use them of course, if they aren't there's nothing wrong with using Russian sources. --Jayron32 18:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-english sources are fine, and the existence of only non-english sources shows that Wikipedia is taking the right steps to counter systemic bias. Ryan Vesey 18:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable, per policy. Resolute 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I have no opinion about notability here, I want to chime my agreement that the lack of English language sources is no impediment in and of itself. We really need some discussion and clarification about what constitutes original research as well — the prohibition is against novel first scientific publications, tinfoil hat renditions of history, and unsourced original opinion essays, not the research and writing of biographies. Carrite (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May I try and explain why this person is important and why there are no references of him in English. He is a legendary participant of a game show. The show is somewhat similar to the American "Jeopardy". It is, however, very different, in that the same people participate over and over again for years, both as individuals and by forming teams. It has become a sort of mental sport. And Wasserman is one of the most popular participants, both for his incredible knowledge, and his non-conformist looks. He is not just popular, he has long become a mem, representing the Russian version of the "mad-scientist". There are hardly any person in Russia who never heard of him. And that is reason enough to include him in the Russia portal of Wikipedia, WHICH, as many people have already said, is not an American or British wikipedia, but an encyclopedia written in English. And foreign sources are perfectly acceptable by the rules and can be easily "translated" for understanding using free online translators.
The reason he's not mentioned anywhere in English is simple - how many of the English-only-speaking people watch Russian TV? BadaBoom (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:BARE, based on only finding a single source here. If we can't find reliable sources written in Roman script, then verifiability is the issue, as I noted at The Pump. In this particular case, I found only one good source, so the issue really is sourcing; translating each source then becomes very difficult. My concerns are also noted above. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just don't get the concept of verifiability, do you? How on Earth did you get to be an administrator when you have such a blinkered view of what an encyclopedia should contain? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would your comment be if instead of having russian sources the sources were offline English sources? Ryan Vesey 17:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to make a general comment here about a misconception that seems to be held by several people on both sides of this discussion. Reading a source in another language is not the same as translating it. There are several languages other than my native English that I can read pretty well, but I don't do that by translating. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anatoly_Wasserman&oldid=1069979529"