Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukhomlinsky


 * 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 snowball keep after expansion. No hard feelings towards nominator. The initial draft was indeed suspicious for the Western world. `'mikka (t) 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sukhomlinsky
A bizzare biography that fails to demonstrate how or why the subject was notable, delete -Peta 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds more like a school essay about a teacher. Sr13 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. It's an essay. MER-C 07:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. No sources, no evidence of notability. Emeraude 13:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but re-write. Sukhomlinsky was a very notable educator, one of the minds behind theory and practice of Soviet humanistic pedagogics.  The article in its present form doesn't do any justice to this person.  I added what I know and could find&mdash;hopefully this is sufficient to keep the article.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Eusebeus 15:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to review the materials I added before voting? Sukhomlinsky was awarded a high-profile Soviet title and wrote a book which was awarded a State Prize.  That alone should be sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO criteria.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (this began as a weak keep, but I'm now sufficiently perplexed as to be unable to draw a conclusive conclusion) I've long argued that, where a subject is notable but where there is little salvagable encyclopedic content in the article apropos of him/her/them/it, stubbification or deletion (with, concomitantly, a listing on WP:RA) is in order, but there appears here to be sufficient content, especially in view of Ëzhiki's additions, that the concerns as to the bizarre, essayistic quality of the article ought to be allayed; there remains, to be sure, much culling to be done, there is a not insignificant amount of text that might be kept or substantially reworked. As to WP:BIO, whilst I'm not at all certain that one's receiving a Hero of Socialist Labor or the State Prize of the Ukrainian SSR confers notability, I think it likelier than not that Sukhomlinsky is notable in view of his prominence as a pedagogic(al) philosopher, which prominence is evidenced, I suppose, by his having been the exclusive subject of one book (and a referenced subject in fourteen more, as may perhaps be sufficient per WP:PROFTEST) that is, AFAICT, the subject of at least one independent, non-trivial review (so as to suggest that the book, at least, is perhaps notable); whether as an author the subject is notable is a closer question.  I was prepared to suggest that reliable sources exist toward his notability, but I don't think the single book to suffice [notwithstanding its having been written by a professor at a notable institution; the professor seems wholly non-notable), especially insofar as (further complicating things), it appears from the August 2004 HD archives that the much of the text for the article was contributed by the book's author), and I can't find much beyond this article in a reliable if non-notable source and this article given  as a teaching resource by the Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies Department at Harvard.  It appears that all of the other relevant Ghits are from mirrors and forks.  For those who disfavor WP:NN in favor exclusively of WP:V, keep would likely be in order, but I'm not amongst the former number, so I remain altogether conflicted, most significantly in view of the concerns raised by those supra w/r/to the verifiability of that which would confer notability.  Joe 17:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To add to this, Great Soviet Encyclopedia does have an article about Sukhomlinsky (in Russian, of course).&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, but re-write. A known Soviet educator, recipient of numerous prestigious (even though Soviet) awards. He is mentioned in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and contemporary Russian encyclopedias. Indeed, the article looks like an essay, but it doesn't mean he is not notable. And guys, if you never heard of a person, it doesn't mean he is not notable. E.g., I saw a DYK article the other day called Raising the flag over Iwo Jima (sorry for possible mispelling), which CLAIMS that this is the most recognizable image in the world. I've never seen this image in my life until I visited the US. How's that for not notable?? KNewman 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, close the vote and get to work on the article. The person is certainly notable. --Irpen 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per above. An award is an award.  The fact that it was given in the Soviet Union does not make it less of an award today.  As to notability, how many other educators have  a commemorative coin with their face on it?.  Vasyl Sukhomlynskyi is a keep.--Riurik (discuss) 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Others have adduced much better sources than those I found, and they of course make plain that the subject is notable. I'd intended to ask an editor able to read Russian to weigh in, as I imagined that many more references were available solely in the Russian language, such that a simple Googling wouldn't be dispositive as to notability, but several editors seem already to have taken up that task, for which they are to be commended.  As to the awards, btw, I didn't mean to suggest that the fact of their being conferred by the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR thereof ought to be understood to diminish their significance; rather, as I've expressed elsewhere, I look somewhat dimly on our considering as necessarily notable those who have received similar state decorations (even those that are particularly exclusive, such as the Bharat Ratna), but I've come, in any case, to rethink that view.  Joe 20:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite - he was a notable theoretician and book author abakharev 00:41, 11 October 2006 (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.