Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings


 * 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. There seems to be no interest in outright deletion here. Further discussion about whether these details should be included in the parent article or remain separate should be handled on talk pages or in a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary split. Many articles about authors include even a large section about themes and styles. Compare Mary Shelley, Ernest Hemingway, Honoré de Balzac, etc Tomcat (7) 11:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was the one who created the split article, during a GA review and a copyedit, so although I don't care about this one way or the other, I thought that I'd chime in. I found trying to assist with improving Fyodor Dostoyevsky a frustrating experience, mostly because of Tomcat7/Kurbis' demonstrated inability to accept feedback, and not just from me.  This is yet another instance of this editor not taking any advice and trying to force the D article through GAC.  Even though I've kept it on my watchlist because I'm curious about what will happen, I've washed my hands of the whole affair, so I don't have any opinion regarding the deletion of this article.  I believe, however, that reinserting the content in this article will make things worse in the main article.  Comparing the main article with the above examples is laughable, which is a shame because Dostoyevsky should have a high-quality article that's not bogged down like it is now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a well sourced article with a clearly defined scope, and the main article is rather large, so this split is supported by summary style practice. —Torchiest talkedits 21:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the content was merged into the main article, your keep vote does not make sense. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Now this article duplicates the same section in the main article. What is the logic behind keeping this article? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That section can be trimmed down to conform with summary style. —Torchiest talkedits 23:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was. To Tomcat7's credit, he was the one who put it the summary before I was able to do it myself.  Interestingly, that version remained until Dec. 3,  when Tomcat merged the content from this article, right before he made the request to delete this article.  Again, a demonstration of his inability to accept feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you state what exactly you don't like about the inclusion of this small article into the main article? Why do you want to redirect people to unnecessary subpages? Why do you think that a section describing his major achivements should be split from the actual article? Why should it be trimmed down if it perfectly fits on the actual page?--Tomcat (7) 15:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I can. It's not a "small article"; it's over 2,000 words long and its inclusion makes the original article much longer.  Readers don't tend to read extra-long articles, and forking sections of them into new articles is a common practice in Wikipedia.  If someone is interested in the topic, they can simply click over to it.  This article doesn't describe D's major achievements; it describes the themes in his works.  It has the potential to be a much longer and more developed article as well, if an editor with knowledge about the subject decides to research and expand it.  D is an important enough writer that I'm sure scores have been written about his themes.  Regarding "trimmed down": please read WP:SS as Torchiest suggests above.  It explains the practice of forking articles and summarizing them in a parent article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Additionally, why should we split something that talks about the author's main achivement, namely writing books? Also this article receives very poor views, a clear sign that such a split destracts readers. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. And the content prematurely merged into the main article should be removed immediately. Merging it in before any discussion takes place is a highly arrogant and aggressive move. The main article is already at 100k and growing. Putting this stuff back in only contributes to the bloat. And I agree with Christine. The nominating editor has consistently demonstrated a chronic inability to collaborate with other well-intentioned editors. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Fyodor Dostoyevsky for now and continue merge/split discussions on article talk pages. It's not clear that the initial split-off was done by consensus, so I am recommending restore the article back to how it was pre-split, and then establish consensus on how to reduce the size of the article via talk page discussions. If I am mistaken about the history of events and there was consensus to do a split, I will change my vote to Keep and let Tomcat7 try to get consensus to do a merge. Either way, merge/split consensus building should be done via Talk page merge/split votes and not via AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2012 (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.