Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Balabin


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable priest. Besides no claim of notability, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:SCHOLAR (those are the only guidelines that I believe might apply). Unsurprisingly given when he lived, a Google News search and Google News Archive search produce no hits. The only reference in the article is to "The Catholic Encyclopedia" and a search of it for "Eugene Balabin" and another search for "Balabin" produce no hits. I searched other online Catholic reference websites like CatholicReference.net for any mention but could find none. I assume that if the subject isn't even notable to Catholics, he's not notable here but I don't pretend to assume that to be a hard rule. A Google Books search produces only one hit and it's not refering to "Eugene Balabin", it's referring to an instance where a list of names happened to include "Eugene, Balabin". I even tried a Google Scholar search which produced no hits. At this point, I would be inclined to call this a hoax if there wasn't so much detail about his life. Also, this Google search produces several similar hits to a string of text that involves "Latest News and Information on 1815 In Literature" but the links point towards somewhat bizzare websites whose goal is confusing to me. They look like they're attempting to compile news about literature from 1815 while selling self-improvement information and website creation guidance. Not a reliable source but they might point to one and I haven't found any leads from that.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) *A Source Check is definitely needed... I definitely have questions about whether the cited source is real or bogus. I suppose it is possible that a russian language version of the Catholic Encyclopedia might contain an entry that is not in the english language versions... but I doubt it. Also... The publication date seem off to me... the Catholic Encyclopedia, went out of print long before 2002 (the modern equivalent that was published in 2002 is called the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" - its not on-line, sorry). In any case, there are enough questions here that we should find someone who can confirm whether there actually was a Moscow printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia in 2002... and if so, does it have an entry on Balabin. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - I still think this qualified for A7 deletion but User:Eastmain declined my A7 nomination stating, "An article about him in another encyclopedia is a strong argument for notability." Since it's inherently contentious, I brought it here.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep An article in another encyclopedia is not just a strong argument for notability, but proof of it. WP always includes individuals whom other reputable encyclopedias have considered notable.   DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please link the policy or guideline that states that we hold all other language Wikipedias' notability guidelines equal to our own? It's always been my understanding that notability guidelines were written separately for a reason; they don't infer anything at another WP.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, for a start. StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What did DGG say about any other language Wikipedias? The argument is that an article in a reputable print encyclopedia demonstrates notability, as the whole thrust of our inclusion criteria is that we go by the judgement of the publishers of such works rather than our own subjective opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep more or less per DGG. There may be specialized reference works that go to a level of detailed we reject -- I swear I've seen a Shakespearean one that gave the legendary pursuing bear its own entry -- but this nowhere approaches such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC) I'm now agnostic here. The sourcing questions raised are quite good. The article reads like a bad machine translation, and most of the names involved produce no reliable Ghits. I wonder if the English transliterations are as bad as the translation. I'd like background from the article creator, whose track record does not suggest any likelihood of hoaxery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC) And now count me as a  weak keep. "Eugene" seems to not be the standard Westernization of the subject's first name, and the article should be retitled. I still can't make heads or tails of much of the paragraph beginning "In 1852 France joined the Catholic Church". But this reference found by GRuban confirms the subject was a prominent apostate, indicating that adequate sourcing is available, difficult as it may be to access. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides not being sure that being in the Catholic Encyclopedia infers notability (I don't think it does), he doesn't appear in any of the three versions (newadvent.org, catholicity.com, and oce.catholic.com]). Can you verify that he is in that source?  If you can find it, we can discuss the concept of one presumably reliable source inferring notable. I tried to link my searches but at least one of those websites seem to be blacklisted.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 22:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He doesn't appear in the catholic.org version, either .  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Request - I would be inclined to agree with you, assuming the other article has usable references, but I can't find the article on any other Wikis. Can anyone else find it?  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 21:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ru:Балабин, Евгений Петрович - I added the "other languages" link to the article. Our article is a very close translation. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * comment&mdash;it seems that there actually is such a book, although i haven't laid eyes on it yet. it is mentioned here: .&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. the bibliography of that book isn't fully available in the google books preview. it might have more info about the encyclopedia itself.  i can't find the encyclopedia in worldcat, but i'm sure now that this is just a language problem.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find... and it eases my concerns considerably. Preview didn't work for me either... but snippets did... I was able to see what Dunn says about it through this search... apparently the Church did indeed publish a Russian Catholic Encyclopedia in 2002.  Reading between the lines of what Dunn says, I suspect that this is not simply a Russian language edition old 1913 era Catholic Encyclopedia (the one that we see on line), nor even a Russian language edition of the more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia.  My guess is that it is uniquely targeted to a Russian audience. So... now all we need to do is find someone with access to a good library in Russia, who could find a copy and see if it does indeed have an article on Balabin. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Oh, he was real all right, as is the Russian Catholic Encyclopedia. ru:Католическая_энциклопедия. This wasn't a Russian language edition of the English language Catholic Encyclopedia, but a separate book, devoted to Russian Catholicism. I think Balabin is notable because he gets mentioned in quite a number of unrelated books scanned by Google, both in English and in German, but I can't find a longer article in any of them.       So I'm assuming that since all these unrelated books find him worthy of mention, there must be others that go into detail. Note, there was a different Evgenii Ivanovich Balabin who was apparently a general in the White Russian Army and memoirist, who gets more Russian Google hits. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reached the same conclusion: this is obviously not the same work as the English language encyclopedias. But it represents an encyclopedia, and we've given all standard non-English encyclopedias the same status as the major English ones as prooving notability . The burden of proof that the ref. is not authentic should now be on someone who can disprove it--its part of the assumption of good faith and we have always accepted printed references on that basis--not necessarily for negative BLP, but that's something special.   DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Given what we have discussed so far a) the citation needs fixing, and the article needs cleaning up but b) it does seem likely that the subject would be in this "Russian Catholic Encyclopedia" (and perhaps some other Russian language sources). In which case I would agree with Weak Keep... fix the article, don't delete it. Fixing it may call for taking the article back to a stubby start level and rebuilding as we find more sources... but that is OK. Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;per excellent arguments made above by my esteemed fellow encyclopedia-builders. yes, it needs fixing, and yes, it meets the gng.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Completely meets WP:GNG now that it has been properly citated. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above arguments. StAnselm (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Regardless of all the other source discussion, the fact remains that the article doesn't make any claim of notability other than saying he was "famous". Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He was a son from a Russian noble family that converted to Catholicism and became a Jesuit. That's at least a claim of notability. How much of a big deal this was at the time can be gathered by the fact that he lost his inheritance and was exiled from the country for it. --GRuban (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't think that's notable. People do convert; I did. What else did he do that was truly notable? Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Helped found the "Slavic Library" at Meudon. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, presumably your conversion took place in a different context. actions don't imply notability so much as the context in which they take place.  "Martin Luther King thought African-Americans should be allowed to vote.  so do i.  how does that make him notable?"&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sources exist, though they seem to be mostly in Russian. There is enough for notability, however. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up a little, corrected some apparent errors, and added citations and new sourced material. Even without hands on the "Catholic Encyclopedia," the article meets WP:N, I think. Apparently Balabin also wrote an account of his conversion, which I cannot find. The badness of the article at nomination is explained by it being a Google Translation of the article from Russian Wikipedia. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments. Mentioned on several notable books about Russian Catholicism.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 13:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which ones? I am concerned that clear-cut sources have yet to emerge. We don't keep BLPs BPs on the assumption that sources might exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
 * What is not clear-cut about the sources listed in the article, including an entry in a print encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * not only that, but this isn't a blp, as the guy died in 1895.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep GRuban found sources.  D r e a m Focus  01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article doesn't make any real claim of notability."famous" is not the same thing as "notable".--Kylfingers (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "famous is not the same as notable" mean that famous is more restrictive than notability; anyone famous is notable, but not everyone notable is famous. It's rule preventing us from limiting Wikipedia to what would be appropriate for an abridged  encyclopedia.   DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a significant figure in the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations, as indicated by multiple sources; that satisfies WP:ANYBIO #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.101 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * plus, not making a "real claim of notability" is a speedy deletion reason, not an afd reason. for afd, the subject has to actually not be notable.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm still not completely sure how I feel about this. Mostly, I feel incapable of assessing the references as they're in Russian or only mention Balabin.  I can't read the others but that doesn't mean they're not verifiable.  I misunderstood others before regarding "another encyclopedia" implying notability as I assumed they meant another language WP.  I'm not sure that another encyclopedia implies notability and I'm certainly not going to attempt to argue the reliability of a 19th century Catholic document (Catholic Dictionary) although I can see how someone could.  I'll I can really say is that I don't have the ability to assess notability at this point.  I would be making assumptions that I'm neither comfortable nor qualified to make.  I didn't !vote as I'm the nominator but this would be changing my !vote to Neutral.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.