Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinko Simov

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tinko Simov[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If the individual played a major role in Bulgarian politics, it's not forthcoming from the article's sole source. I didn't find anything substantial in database searches for the English-language name. If his role is worth mentioning and if there perhaps are some Bulgarian-language sources that bear it out, it would be more appropriate to write an article on anarchism in Bulgaria or section on the region's history than a dedicated biographical article. Ultimately, there isn't enough reliable sourcing to describe the topic in encyclopedic depth, nevertheless to do basic justice to the topic. There are no worthwhile mentions to use as redirect targets (article is orphaned). PROD'd in 2010. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. czar 05:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the two sources, only one is not a dead link and I am not sure as to its overall notability. As the nominator said, if the individual had played a major role in Bulgarian politics, you would expect there to be more coverage readily available and included within the article. Would definitely be open to keeping it should new evidence arise demonstrating/proving notability. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - @Czar:, @TheSandDoctor:, there is an online version of the one google books hit for the individual. It is a book/pamphlet written by an anarchist, Georges Balkanski, about one of Simov's collaborators, Georges Cheïtanov. It is in french and here is the link[1]. Cheïtanov does not have an article. However, given the number of hits written in Cyrillic (most or all in Bulgarian) for his at google books, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q="Тинко+Симов", at least some of which are certainly about this Simov, it seems he is probably covered in multiple sources, and probably at times in depth, as with the biography of Cheïtanov. I think he passes NPOV and NOR as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't keep on probability—what sources have depth and can be used to write an article? Surely not a bunch of mentions. Also why did you use http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html—it has no signs of reliability... Note that our Bulgarian article too has no sources. czar 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be slow to respond. I didn't mean to say, "there must be sources", but rather, look at all of these sources in Bulgarian. I see most of them in snippet view, but it is not too hard to string together snippets to find out if a particular source is in depth. I have just started trying to add sources to the article from google books, and will try to do a bit more tonight or this weekend. If you can read Bulgarian (which I cannot), or have experience, do you know if topwar.ru is a reliable source? It seems somewhere between a high level blog and a news site. Simov's coverage in that source is certainly in depth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes non-English sources give the impression of depth but have little, which is why it's necessary to read the actual contents to argue that there's enough substance with which to write an article. For example, topwar.ru (Военное обозрение) appears to be more of a blog with a big forum. It doesn't have a presence on ruwp but has been used in some enwp articles, likely without discrimination. The only article they have on Simov (Тинко Симов) is this 2015 section, but its text rips wholesale from bgwp's pre-2015 ... so that and no explicit editorial policy/pedigree for accuracy leaves little trust for reliability. Is there perhaps some separate, larger Bulgarian military history action or topic that might be able to house the information you found? czar 18:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll keep chipping away at the statements cited to either web-page, sourcing them to books. I've struck weak from my !vote, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure if the material would be a good fit anywhere else. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- For a Bulgarian subject, we cannot expect to have a lot of English language sources. However, I observe the Bulgarian WP has an article and assume that says much the same as the English one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron, the Bulgarian article was already noted for having no sourcing... czar 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably I do not read Bulgarian, but as there is a Bulgarian WP article, we should follow their lead. If the article is removed from AFD there we should also remove it. Until then we should assume good faith. Even a site pushing a strong POV is not necessarily unreliable, merely suspicious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron, but that's not how AfD or AGF works? Every language WP has its own notability standards, and more importantly, each has its own pace for addressing unsourced articles. The Bulgarian article has no sources, so there is nothing for us to take from it. Good faith is about assuming that others mean well and are trying to help the project, especially as the Internet decontextualizes their actions. It doesn't mean blind faith in assuming that another's work cannot be checked/verified. czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is that articled should be verifiable, bit that they should be verified by references. If a Bulgarian WP's AFD removed the article, we should follow, but until then, I would prefer to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your logic here. A "keep" rationale based on appearance in other Wikipedias is explicitly listed as an argument to avoid for reasons I already explained czar 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://ikonomov.a-bg.net is also unreliable and should be removed. (It's used in double refs, and not knowing what exactly the other ref covers, I'd prefer not to leave something unsourced by removing it myself) czar 18:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a-bg.net, I'm not sure if this site is clearly unreliable. The site is now anarchy.bg and is run by the Federation of Anarchists in Bulgaria (Федерация на Анархистите в България). Clearly the site is POV and should be used carefully and in conjunction with other hopefully more reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

? Well it certainly doesn't have a reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, as our definition of reliability, and if it helps, we certainly wouldn't use a partisan English-language anarchist site as a reliable source for historical information, either. We're not even getting a clear lineage of authorship on a-bg.net... czar 00:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know its reputation and defer to you, if you are more familiar with it. I think removing the link is disengenuous to our reader, per WP:SWYGI, but I agree that it is good that we now have published oook citations for most (all?) of the material in the article. Regarding your second statement, we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources, I don't know if they are anarchist, and I agree that when used, usually they should be improved. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we do use partisan, English-language sites as sources

Not for general facts when the partisan sources have no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, which is what makes a site reliable and which http://ikonomov.a-bg.net/tinkosimov.html does not do. (Mind that anarchy.bg is separate/different in organization from ikonomov.a-bg.net.) Since you stacked the refs, I could use your help confirming that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs czar 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are talking past each other regarding partisan sources, but before requesting that we put that issue aside, I want to reiterate that I am not particularly interested in the source except in as much as it is the richest source I found on Simov and our readers might be well served if pointed in that direction. In any case, the link to the original source of the article exists in the article history and can be found if someone needs it.

Regarding your other point, I do not know what you mean by "stacked the refs". Perhaps you are referring to the process of adding an abundance of loosely related to the subject references to "save" an article on AfD. If so, I did not mean to do that, I only meant to provide refs for the article from the google books search I linked as you suggested on the 15th. Regarding helping confirm that the text accurately reflects the remaining refs, I am not sure how to do that for snippets. Do you speak Bulgarian? Do you see snippets for the pages I provided when searching for Тинко Симов or a related string? Sometimes it is requested that a quote be added from a reference to establish connection between the reference and the point in the article. Is that what you are requesting? If so, I again want to note that I do not speak Bulgarian and am relying on google translate (and I do not use a Cyrillic keyboard and was forced to rely on a slow process in some cases where directly copy-pasting text was less possible); so while it is perfectly acceptable for you to make such a request, I am not sure how best to respond given the amount of time complying would take. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that if a paragraph reads "Fact A. Fact B.[ref 1][ref 2]" and ref 1 is removed, then either facts A and B should be verifiable in ref 2, or the facts should be removed (so the content matches the sourcing). I thought you'd be familiar with the contents of each source as you added the refs czar 17:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I'm not sure I agree that facts should be removed, I'll double check and add {{cn}} to statements for which I haven't found anything other than the a-bg.net article. I propose we leave these statements in at least until the end of the AfD, so that anyone who sees our discussion can see what material will be removed due to questions regarding that source. I'll also remove the verification needed tags where appropriate, if you don't mind. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 20 July 2017 (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.