Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruel Sky (novel)

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. Straight headcount would call this NC, but most of the Delete arguments are based on the idea that English-language wikipedia should not be covering literature which is not available in English. I can find no policy which supports that argument. Certainly, we have policy which says non-english sources are OK. I can't find any policy one way or the other about non-english subjects, so I assume they are valid topics (if you know of such a policy, please cite it on my talk page).

There's three completely orthogonal concepts here: what language the encyclopedia is written in, what language the literary work being covered is written in, and what language the citations are in which support a claim of notability. Only the first one is required to be English for the English-language Wikipedia.

I will admit I've been moved artificially toward deciding on Keep in an attempt to counter Wikipedia:Systemic bias, but only a little bit. The only other possible close here would be NC and in general I don't lose a lot of sleep over deciding between Keep and NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There's certainly nothing in this AfD which would prevent this being moved to a different title, if those who are subject matter experts come to some consensus that a different translation would be better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Sky (novel)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence either here on in the Ukrainian article that the novel is notable. An earlier book of his apparently reached no.2 in a book store list. There is no evidence this one did. The 2nd and 3rd sections here are completely uncited. section 2 would appear unciteable. There's nothing additional in the Uk article that could be used. No need for a merge as its already covered adequately on the article on the author. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I can't speak well for Ukrainian sources so I'll invite Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll look for sources and see if it meets notability for books. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. He appears to be a very popular author in Ukraine, sufficient coverage of his new book. I've added sources and cleaned it up. Also very odd connection to a real crash that brought more interest in the book (and apparently even bizarre conspiracy theories) - in his novel, a Ukrainian jet collides with a snowplow and crashes at a French airport; two months after the book came out, a French jet collided with a snowplow at a Russian airport, killing everyone on board. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I realize this will anger some folks, but I see no reason to have an article in @en Wikipedia for a book that has not been translated into English, and appears to have no cultural or social affect in English-speaking countries. I would even question using a translated title for a book that has not been translated (since, if it were, there is no telling what title the publisher would choose to use). I can't imagine why this article would be in @en WP except for purposes of promotion. Readers of Russian and Ukrainian can find information about the author and his writings in @ru and @uk WP. LaMona (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not particularly familiar with Ukrainian sources, but they look reliable enough and there seems to be enough of them to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LaMona makes a compelling argument here. Kraxler (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree. The notability of an article is not affected by the language the sources are in so long as they are reliable, and there is no policy on Wikipedia that states that we should delete articles whose impact falls primarily outside of the English-speaking world. I'm also going to note that following LaMona's logic is going to strongly promote systemic bias, something that should be discouraged. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources, It's about the book not having been published in English and not having an English title which makes this title WP:OR. That has nothing to do with systemic bias, I'm in fact already a bit tired to hear from !voters who try to squeeze into Wikipedia their favorite non-notable subjects that people who disagree with them are trying to promote systemic bias. Please avoid assuming bad faith.

Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, faithfully translating something from a foreign language does not constitute original research (this may be stretching the policy a bit, but the title is sourced to numerous reliable sources that cover the book in extended detail). Also, I really do not appreciate being accused of violating WP:GF. I pointed out what I considered to be a serious, unintended flaw in your argument; nowhere did I make a personal attack against you or your motives for making the argument in the first place.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on sources, that's one of the WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia. There is no source for the translated title. The title is translated, not transcribed. I suggest you ask an English teacher what the difference is. I also suggest you stop talking gibberish like "I'm not particularly familiar with Ukrainian sources" followed by "the title is sourced to numerous reliable sources that cover the book in extended detail" So what is it, can you read Ukrainian, or can't you? Kraxler (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My google translator translates "Жорстоке небо" to "Ill Sky", so much for a "faithful" translation. Kraxler (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seconding SoE's sentiments, while adding that there is a plethora of Wiki articles in English about foreign films-the cinematic equiv of notable books that have yet to be translated. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF again? Well, name one Wikipedia article with these characteristics: A foreign-language film that has not been shown in any English-speaking country so that the title is a translation but not the official English-language release title; and no English-speaking source ever used the title, or reviewed the film, or mentioned the film. Kraxler (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:NOENG citing sources outside of the English language is acceptable if no English sources exist in its place. The thing being described by the name meets notability requirements, and disagreements over an article’s name is not justification for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you can't cite one example of the alleged "plethora"? I'm not talking about the sources, they may look fine to somebody who can read Cyrillic script, but the title of this article is WP:Original research, forbidden per Wikipedia policy. Please note that "policy" is a step above "guideline". Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SnowdenFan and Spirit of Eagle make good points. However, Kraxler's points to me are the over-riding factor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After further research, I found WP:TRANSLITERATE, a policy which states that “Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated” and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)# No established usage in English-language sources, a guideline which notes that its possible for notable subjects to have failed to receive attention in the English speaking world and to not have English names. This should solve any disputes over title and original research. I’ll also admit that I may have previously attempted to force some policies and guidelines that didn’t really fit. However, we now have a title (or an ability to get one) in line with policy for an article with sources whose reliability no one has objected to, and that a keep is the outcome most in-line with Wikipedia policy. Unless anyone has any objections to the above comment, I’ll be withdrawing myself from this AfD in the hopes that cooler heads will step in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY [1], multiple reliable sources provided, enough to pass GNG. The side argument about the title is clearly inappropriate here and it belongs to the talk page. For the record, I agree the current title is wrong and the page should be renamed with the trasliterated title (in this case Zhorstoke nebo), but having a wrong title is not a valid argument for deletion and once notability was established we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cavarrone 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's notable in another language, but not available in English, then English WP might be the only resource for an English speaker to find out about the book. If the title is wrong then I agree with the above argument of renaming it. Figure81 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Max Kidruk, the author who is clearly notable. Comments above are frequently about the notability of the author, not this book. The existance of an article on another Wikipedia about a topic is not dispositive of its notability here, as the English Wikipedia oftn has different standards of notability. In the article there is no claim made about the notability of this book. This is just his ninth novel. Fails WP:NBOOK, whether looking at Ukrainian or English sources. The article is only a plot summary, undocumented material about how long it took to write, and a coincidential subsequent event unrelated to the book. Redirect is appropriate. @Figure81: Your point about access would be solved by a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (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.