Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov


 * 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   redirect to The Brothers Karamazov. Some disagreement on whether the character should have a separate article or not, but reading the debate here leaves a rough consensus that if there is to be a separate article, it would need to be more firmly sourced to secondary sourcing of character analysis. I am leaving the history of the article in place so that it can be accessed if more material needs to be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!)  21:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Pavel_Fyodorovich_Smerdyakov
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article meets multiple criteria for deletion, including:
 * 6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. This is because the article is a collection of individual opinions/interpretations of a fictional character rather than an encyclopedia style entry.
 * 8. Article fails to meet WP:N. This is because it is an article about a fictional character who appears in a novel with its own entry, namely "The Brothers Karamazov." A heading with an encyclopedia style description of the character already exists in the article for the full novel.
 * 14. Content is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Article is composed almost entirely of original thought (personal essay) along with soapbox statements (advocacy and opinion materials). Article contains primarily information about subjects with no clear relationship to the subject of the article. Lager guy99 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Lager guy99 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The character seems to get significant critical attention. For example, see “Balaam’s Ass”: Smerdyakov as a paradoxical redeemer in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov.  Per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that the character is important to the novel "Brothers Karamazov" and like all Dostoevsky characters has received critical attention. As noted, however, the character already receives a heading in The_Brothers_Karamazov there is sufficient encyclopedia style information on the page for the novel itself, and there is not sufficient substantive encyclopedia style information to be added to this in order to justify a separate page for this character. Most of the main characters for this novel do not have a separate page even while being of more significance to the book and receiving equal or greater scholarly attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lager guy99 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The odds are the character is notable, through what my quick BEFORE found was only plot summary. But the current article is a WP:ESSAY/WP:OR mess that seems in need of a WP:TNT. I am willing to reconsider my vote if sources are found showing notability (reception, analysis, etc.) but it might be easier to retire this and restart the article from scratch. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is not policy; it's an WP:ESSAY and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Our actual policies are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which make it very clear that weak starts on a topic are acceptable and that we prefer to improve what we have rather than deleting it.  The idea is that starting again from nothing is sensible is absurd.  Any writer knows that a blank piece of paper is quite intimidating and Wikipedia puts numerous bureaucratic obstacles in the way of fresh creation too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew in principle to be sure, and would be much happier to find a way to improve rather than delete--that is always the better road as we all agree. I suggested this for full deletion, however, because in looking at the page I could not identify any content whatsoever that could reasonably be preserved. Virtually none of the current content deals with the character in question, and instead discusses what appear to be some pet theories on the part of the author regarding Dostoevsky, Russian history, and a table of names that has no clear purpose. I was also concerned about the fact that in the talk page for this article the primary author explicitly states that they have written this article in a non-ecyclopedia style and cannot be standardized for political reasons (author states: "If the article is standardized, it will look like a modern winning American politician, mostly from the Democratic Party.") While I once again completely agree with Andrew that a weak start should not be deleted just for that fact, my viewpoint is that in this situation leaving the article as it is and hoping for future edits amounts to protecting the work of someone who has consciously leveraged the Wikipedia platform to disseminate non-ecyclopedia commentary. I do not believe that policies such as WP:IMPERFECT are meant to allow users to post whatever personal and unrelated ideas they wish into a given page on the grounds that the ostensible topic of that page is notable, and thereafter have their personal and mostly unrelated essay persist on the system indefinitely on the grounds that the supposed (but not actual) topic could theoretically be worth an entry. This does not seem to be at all in the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. In short this is not in fact a weak start that could and should be improved, it is a deliberate misuse of the system that should not be protected. And once again, of major importance, the character does already receive an appropriate description within Wikipedia. Lager guy99 (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Actually, you are very wrong about what's easier. New editors are scared not by lack of a page, but by the existence of lengthy low quality content they may have to rewrite or remove; many are worried that they cannot delete it due to it not being theirs. And experienced editors who may want to DYK it are put off by the fact that they have to do 5x expansion and are saddled with all that trash that may need deleting anyway but still counts towards the 5x requirement. See and the point about 'Running out of easy topics'. And common-sense shows that people created a lot of articles in the early days of the project, when they were blank. We are not growing faster than in these days but slower. You know, this graph and others. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete per Piotrus. Delete in the sense that there are no reliable third party sources to make this notable. But weak in the sense that we are uncertain about whether sources can be found, and someone could recreate or rescue this if they indeed find them. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an issue of notability but needs a complete overhaul and rewrite. Both The French and Russian versions of this article appears to be properly written as an encyclopedic article, at least through the filter of machine translation, and is cited with multiple secondary sources. It would be preferable if these versions could be transcribed into English to replace the low quality content of this article. Haleth (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep but only if someone wants to transfer over the French version here. If no one is willing to do it Delete and redirect to The_Brothers_Karamazov. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, the French version looks good and if transferred over that would be an excellent resolution. Forgive me for the noob question, but if no one steps forward in the course of this discussion to do that (my French is solid but my time is not up to the task) then is there a way to do the delete and redirect that you suggest, and then also tag it as an article needing translation? Lager guy99 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Conditional as per Davidstewartharvey. Someone should transfer the French article. If not I could see the merit of blowing it up and linking to the french article at Requested articles so that we get someone who has french language experience to help when they see it. Archrogue (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I can't believe it!

Dostoevsky has no second plan. This is an authentic story from an original Russian settlement to an average Russian family at the time, and generally addicted to alcohol! The Bolshoi Theater is not visible at all from behind.

Delete immediately! At will. 87.120.218.226 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Easy call. Merge Pavel_Fyodorovich_Smerdyakov to The_Brothers_Karamazov and redirect the article to that section. We can also merge parts of Pavel_Fyodorovich_Smerdyakov to The_Brothers_Karamazov. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Act like Facebook and Twitter with Donald Trump

Magistra vitae. To make Alexander the Great even greater, it is necessary to delete the article about Darius III. In this spirit of logic, Russia does not exist in modern times. What does the literary image of the murderer/creator of Russia mean in this case? Nothing! 87.120.218.226 (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.