Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porfiry Ivanov


 * 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   speedy keep: withdrawal of the nomination with no other editors favoring deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Porfiry Ivanov

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources seem to be available except things published by this person. This appears to be an advert for a cult and about a non-notable topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced page about a cult figure. Possibly, an alternative might be to make an NPOV bio page as a cult figure, but it is unclear that reliable sources to support notability exist. I've done a Google Scholar search on the source, and (excluding hits on other people with the same first or last name) there were only 3 hits, all of them in what seem to me to be fairly obscure Russian sources that may be sympathetic to the subject. That makes me doubt very much that reliable sources exist that would establish notability. A similar search on Google News yielded 6 hits, mostly about people who go swimming in ice-cold water based on the subject's teachings -- would there be a basis for a page based on that? Or a redirect/merge into Ice swimming? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but revise. Although I'm not really changing my views on the comments I made above, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. What flipped me is (1) the source found by Aidan on the talk page of the article, which encyclopedically documents that the subject has a significant following, (2) some evidence of the subject's relevance to ice-swimming, for whatever that's worth, and (3) the possibility raised by comments below that there will be more reliable sources in Russian. That said, some reasonable caveats. As I think we all agree, the page needs to be rolled-back to the pre-POV shorter form, and made strictly NPOV. Also there may be a need to prevent future hijacking of the page (permanent semi-protection, perhaps, as uncomfortable a proposal as that may be?). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say I strongly oppose protection unless we see more POV pushing from that IP. I am a big fan of anonymous users, and protection seems drastic. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal, as that's largely an issue for after closing the AfD. I'm just reacting to the page's edit history: a large number of disruptive IP edits, and every IP's user contributions showing edits only on this one page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For consideration, Google Scholar only has this guy mentioned in passing in a couple of papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  (That's what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Weak Keep. I think there is some indication the figure is notable. I think the page should to be cut down to a stub and re-built and semi-protected to keep the IP editor from hi-jacking. That being said, deletion is preferable to the current state of the article. --Aidan (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, was Delete . There seems to be some evidence that information may be gained about this guy if we get a Russian-speaking editor (it's beyond my abilities) in here. (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The guy is definitely notable.  Just take a glance at the corresponding article in ru_wiki&mdash;it should give you an idea of how many sources are available out there.  The sources are, of course, Russian, but so was Ivanov.  A typical case of systemic bias in action, me thinks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, July 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really reliable? The biggest section is 'Legends' and looks to be pretty uncredible. Did this guy really live for nearly 100 years? Irbisgreif (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy was a religious cook, and a very notable one at that. His "health system", while not exactly scientific, does have many merits, which Ivanov seems to have arrived to empirically (and yes, he did live for almost 100 years).  In Russia, this person is a subject of numerous publications, and while many of those emphasize the mystical, religious, and "legendary" aspects, as well as other crap of that nature, there are academic publications as well.  Ivanov was a subject of several documentaries, and his "system" still has a wide (and wild) following.  All in all, this article is not easy to improve without having a background in the subject or doing a thorough research, if only because one would have to wade through oodles of "mystical" diarrhea, which is bound to pop up most often in searches and even in libraries.  In the end, however, the topic is most definitely encyclopedic.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, July 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take that on good faith, then, and switch to keep with the caveat that the material needs to be translated. Делаите это? Я говорит по-русский очень медленно. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I can list this on requests for translations and/or ask around :) I guess I don't do very well with translations of articles the subject of which doesn't interest me one bit, but I couldn't just pass by a valid encyclopedic topic being slated for deletion either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, July 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, revising based on old version. It seems like the hijacked version of the page is what triggered the AfD. It sounds like there was a better version beforehand. I say revert to that and improve the article. If it's in an unsourced/lack of notability situation after a month or two, renominate. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. All parties concerned, including the nominator, have !voted as keep. Based on that, the AfD is eligible to be closed as a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good! As soon as it's closed, I'll self-revert my return of the page to its objectionable version, and turn it back to the pre-POV stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (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.