Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valery Androsov


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Despite the extensive length of the messages opposing deletion, this is actually a very straightforward closure, because the "delete" arguments are grounded in policy, while the "keeps" simply aren't. I don't see any point in a detailed analysis of why each of the arguments given for keeping fails, but to illustrate the points, I will describe two of them. Firstly, there is a total failure to grasp the point of WP:BURDEN. Not only is it contrary to Wikipedia policy to take the line "I believe that this article should be kept, but it's up to you to provide sources to show that it should", but it's also contrary to logic. Secondly, "there probably are refs out there" is a perfect example of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JBW (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Valery Androsov

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture,  and Russia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Have you done WP:BEFORE with Russian sources? You can use Google translate. Even then it's harder to find Russian sources. He's a big deal in Mytishchi, and if he was an American, with his achievements, he'd surely have enough articles etc. to rate an article. We don't want to be too Anglo-centric here. Heck we want to try to bring in articles about people outside the Anglosphere. I translated this article from the Russian Wikipedia (Андросов, Валерий Владимирович). There are seven references there. I didn't put them all in. There's only one of me. OP could do the work instead of trying to delete the article. The article in Russian Wikipedia has been there 15 years, so they're fine with it I guess.


 * As a general rule, I think that if there's an article in the Russian Wikipedia, it should be considered that an article in the Wikipedia would probably be a good idea. Within reason. To avoid Anglocentrism. I'm sure there are really obscure things that, even if they have a good Russian article, should not be brought over, if it would have basically zero interest to anyone except a Russian. Androsov is not one of them. None of this is written down anywhere, but it's still a good de-facto rule to follow. Sorry for going on, I'm like that. Herostratus (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I read:
 * "demonstrate his mastery of modern materials"
 * "have retained ergonomic and aesthetic appeal over the decades"
 * "has had a major impact on the memorial architecture of the city of Mytishchi"
 * "one of the major monuments in the city of Mytishchi"
 * "a significant event in the cultural life of the city of Mytishchi"
 * "one of the city's dominant architectural works"
 * "has won prizes for various monument projects"
 * "was awarded the Medal 'Veteran of Labour' and the Medal 'In Commemoration of the 850th Anniversary of Moscow'"
 * Notability indeed. Or anyway, notability if these can be believed. And to be believed, each has to be backed up with a reliable source. Currently, none of them is. Herostratus is an experienced editor in good standing, and if they say they can read Russian and that good sources can be provided, I'll believe it. But if Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours. Herostratus is free to (temporarily?) remove some of the claims above. But of the claims that remain, the majority should be soundly sourced. As long as they aren't, this should be draftified. I'd then trust Herostratus to promote it to article status when it merits this, and not before. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmph. Hmph, I say. Re "If Herostratus wants an article for Androsov, then creating a decently referenced one is their job, not ours" c'mon, building the Wikipedia is everyone's job; almost all articles are worked on by several editors. And you can't "trust" me do everything you want me to, or actually anything. I'm busy. If you don't want readers to see the article, say so. Don't put in my userspace without my permission. I don't "own" this article any more than any other editor does. I'd be willing to consider supporting draftifying to your userspace if you will undertake to bring it up to your standards. If you can't read Russian, you could learn.


 * But beyond all that, it's been my understanding that an article is usually kept if it has sufficient reliable sources or could have. If we're now onto deleting articles that don't currently have sufficient refs, even tho they are out there, that's a lot of articles. It's supposed to be the nominators job to do WP:BEFORE and, on finding good and necessary refs, put them in themselves or else at least pass on sending the article here. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I want to create an article about something or somebody, then it should be decently referenced and it's me who should provide this decent referencing. Note "decent", not "entirely satisfactory", let alone "unsurpassable". Others could come along and improve the referencing here and there, and I'd hope that they'd do just that. A major reason why it should be me who attempts to reference all of my new article is that I'd know which bit of it came from which reliable source, and it's far easier for me to create a decent article "forwards" than it is for other editors to create one backwards. No, Herostratus, I don't want this draft in my userspace, because I have little interest in its subject (although more than I have in the subjects of tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of other articles), and realize that I'd have little competence to improve it. Anyway, I'm busy too, though I try not to trouble other editors with my own creations (my most recent fresh creation, IIRC, subsequently improved somewhat, and of course welcoming further improvements by others). -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep' per Herostratus, a full and certainly adequate defense of the page. Please remember that at AfD finding good sources and discussing them will save an article, even if the sources are not currently used on the page. The sources establish notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I concur. This topic fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not finding reliable sources to add to the uncited information presented in the English article. A translation of the Russian article doesn't have sources that show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Herostratus, "doesn't currently have sufficient refs." Feel free to draftify to my userspace where I will work on it after I've learned the required Russian. Elspea756 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you studying Russian now, or are you just being sarcastic? Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am studying Russian now. Elspea756 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent. But as to "doesn't currently have sufficient refs" being a reason for deletion or draftifying an article, no, that is not the usual standard. It it was, over half our articles would be subject to immediate destruction, and that's several million articles. When coming across an problematic article, I have found this 1-2-3 rubric appropriate:


 * 1) Find and put in the refs yourself.
 * 2) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that (very very likely, and fine), tag the most problematic statements and/or the whole article as a whole as needing refs.
 * 3) If you don't have time/interest/competence for that -- we're talking a couple-few minutes, for an article that may have taken a colleague hours to write -- if you can't be bothered to do that, then move on, go do something constructive.


 * Tagging serves two purposes: it alerts the reader to take the tagged material with a grain of salt, and it flags other editors (or readers) that the article needs some reffing work. Tagging doesn't mean "Look at this garbage". It means "Hello, citizen! Here is a place where the article could be improved! You're invited to pitch in if you're so inclined."


 * If you find or think that the article can't be reffed, that's different. If the article is about something that looks trivial and the writer didn't put in any refs, there probably aren't any. Probably.


 * But, if it's a good and decent-sized article about a subject that doesn't seem trivial on its face -- 14th century Bulgarian poet, archeological site, Russia artist, whatever -- then there probably are refs out there, its just that nobody has put them in yet. Most people don't usually write six dense paragraphs on a not-obviously-trivial subjects for which no refs exist. Or there might be refs, but not enough good ones. You'll find this if you do WP:BEFORE.


 * So, there are a lot of subtleties. Of course there are, this is a very complicated operation we're running here. Facts live on a continuum of importance and liklihood. If there are facts that are somewhat important and seem like they might be dubious, you could just delete those ones, if you think tagging won't do; we don't want to seriously mislead our readers. Many facts are not very important and/or are very likely true. Tagging is usually better for those. One has to use one wits to make one's best judgement here; no rule can guide one. In this article, for instance, whether or not Androsov was director of the Mytishchi Art Gallery is important, but very likely he was. Nothing's impossible, but it's not the sort of thing that somebody would just make up, or get wrong. Conversely, there might be stuff that is more likely to be wrong but is trivial. Both of these are worth tagging! They are! Absolutely, tag them, and thank you. But, they're not necessarily a good reason for, you know, erasing the article altogether. For one thing, deleting an article stops cold its improvement. Its hard to add refs to an article that doesn't exist anymore. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not reading all of that. You've already left multiple lengthy comments which I have previously read and responded to. Don't bother replying to me again. Thanks. Elspea756 (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You want to destroy my hours of work on a reasonably-OK article for the stated reason that "doesn't currently have sufficient refs" is all that's needed, yet you won't take five minutes to read about how that is not OK and giving some tips about how you might consider these issues more deeply (or at least correctly). Got it. Please strike your vote. If you won't, I request that the closer disregard it. You're not willing to take five minutes to become more educated (or at least hear another voice) on what we're, I don't know, trying to do here, and decline to engage. This is not good. You should not be participating in AfD discussions, so for the good of the project please stop, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I need more time to work on this. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This article has been tagged since 2010. It has been on AfD for a week. You have spent time discussing why the article should be kept, rather than adding sources to the uncited paragraphs of the article. Plenty of time to make the additions (that no one else can find). It is not reasonable to keep an article on a non-notable person because an editor insists there is something out there. Your bludgeoning is not persuasive. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2023 (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.