Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Maksakovsky


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavel Maksakovsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single source and no real claim to notability (published in a run of 1300 seems to be most significant claim). A bit too asserted for CSD, in my opinion, so here we are. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- the original printing had a run of 1500, but Thoreau's Walden had fewer. What is important is that in 2004 it was translated and reprinted by a significant publisher and now has over 100 library copies in Worldcat (generally enough for a keep for a figure being brought back from 100 years of silence) and reviews in journals (Science and Society, etc.).  The publication of his thoughts 80 years after his death is a significant indication of notability, not how important they were in his time. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. If it's only his book that has any significance, we should have an article about the book, not him. And we can't have an article about either without reliable secondary sources to provide us the material for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I could agree with a move + edit to an article about the book. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep it has received significant coverage in recent serious Marxist journals: Richard B Day in Historical Materialism 10:3, Hadas Thier in International Socialist Review, Stavros D. Mavroudeas in Science and Society ; Google Books indicates a significant number of citations. I've not checked for Russian sources. Regarding claims that he's not notable because he only wrote one book, that is contradicted by WP:AUTHOR and WP:SCHOLAR: both only require a single contribution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2013 (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.