Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genrikh Graftio
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 keep. Michig (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Genrikh Graftio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reliable independent sourcing on this person to indicate notability. The Russian articles and "encyclopedia entry" only indicate that he was one of several engineers who worked on a hydoelectric dam. While the hydo-electric dam is notable, this engineer is not. Outside of being part of the immense team that built the dam he is virtually unknown. There are many people who did similar work who do not merit Wikipedia articles. I refer to WP:BIO, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was a member of Russian Academy of Sciences, which makes him automatically notable as WP:ACADEMIC (#3). In addition to this, he has a personal entry in Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the main state-sponsored encyclopedia in Soviet Union (similar to Britannica in notability) which is an independent source. I do not quite understand what we are talking about. For me, this should be a speedy keep case and a trout to the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced that #3 applies. For those who do not have time or energy to look it up: "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." Any person in or out of Russia of any nationality can become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is akin to "National Geographic". Yes it is prestigious. No it is not necessarily selective. While they do have a selective body, there is no indication that Genrikh Graftio was ever a member of it. No citation. No nobel-like ceremony. No news coverage. No sourcing. I can get a three year membership and claim to be a member too, that does not make me a notable Russian Scientist. The "encyclopedia entry" is equally problematic. It was rated a "3" on accuracy, that's lower than Wikipedia, and we should strive to improve ourselves at all times. It is well known among academics not to be relied apon without a secondary source, as it still contains a lot of puffery left over from the cold war. Read point#2 here:Evaluating reference Material the point i am trying to make is this: The article simply needs more citations and sources in order to be valid. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about. The Russian Academy of Sciences holds elections every three years. It is similar to the French Academy, the membership is for life, and if an academician dies, his/her seat becomes available for elections. Only other academicians vote. The most prestigious encyclopedia in Russian states very clearly that he was elected in 1932. I am not sure what inauguration reports do you want. The results of the elections were published in the most prestigious newspapers like the Pravda, but I do not have access to the issues of the Pravde or the Izvestiya from 1932. I am not sure why you are fighting against the windmills. Imagine you nominate for deletion a member of US National Academy who has a personal entry in Britannica which is one page long - and claim he is not notable because Britannica is not reliable - how many trouts do you get?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take all of this personally. I am just a messenger. The "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" is nowhere near the quality of Brittanica or even Wikipedia, as my link above bears out. There are articles in that "Encyclopedia" proclaiming how great the Berlin Wall was. It simply isn't a reliable source. I am not saying that this person didn't do interesting things. There are many interesting things that do not get their own Wikipedia Articles. Perhaps we could merge this into a larger article about obscure Russian engineers or something. I don't know. I have been trying to find sources for this article for hours. Contrary to what you may think, I would like to save it. I simply can't find any reliable sourcing yet. If some decent sourcing shows up, I will be all too happy to withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am not even sure what source would be reliable for you. I will check the correspnoding village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Left a request--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't take all of this personally. I am just a messenger. The "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" is nowhere near the quality of Brittanica or even Wikipedia, as my link above bears out. There are articles in that "Encyclopedia" proclaiming how great the Berlin Wall was. It simply isn't a reliable source. I am not saying that this person didn't do interesting things. There are many interesting things that do not get their own Wikipedia Articles. Perhaps we could merge this into a larger article about obscure Russian engineers or something. I don't know. I have been trying to find sources for this article for hours. Contrary to what you may think, I would like to save it. I simply can't find any reliable sourcing yet. If some decent sourcing shows up, I will be all too happy to withdraw the nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you are talking about. The Russian Academy of Sciences holds elections every three years. It is similar to the French Academy, the membership is for life, and if an academician dies, his/her seat becomes available for elections. Only other academicians vote. The most prestigious encyclopedia in Russian states very clearly that he was elected in 1932. I am not sure what inauguration reports do you want. The results of the elections were published in the most prestigious newspapers like the Pravda, but I do not have access to the issues of the Pravde or the Izvestiya from 1932. I am not sure why you are fighting against the windmills. Imagine you nominate for deletion a member of US National Academy who has a personal entry in Britannica which is one page long - and claim he is not notable because Britannica is not reliable - how many trouts do you get?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not convinced that #3 applies. For those who do not have time or energy to look it up: "3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association." Any person in or out of Russia of any nationality can become a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is akin to "National Geographic". Yes it is prestigious. No it is not necessarily selective. While they do have a selective body, there is no indication that Genrikh Graftio was ever a member of it. No citation. No nobel-like ceremony. No news coverage. No sourcing. I can get a three year membership and claim to be a member too, that does not make me a notable Russian Scientist. The "encyclopedia entry" is equally problematic. It was rated a "3" on accuracy, that's lower than Wikipedia, and we should strive to improve ourselves at all times. It is well known among academics not to be relied apon without a secondary source, as it still contains a lot of puffery left over from the cold war. Read point#2 here:Evaluating reference Material the point i am trying to make is this: The article simply needs more citations and sources in order to be valid. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject:Russia notified of this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:ACADEMIC as mentioned above, and there are plenty of Russian-language sources in the Russian version of the article which indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 06:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of independent and reliable sources that prove notability on a number of levels. Why would we ever want to delete this article? Azylber (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Source them into the article so that we can put an end to this. All I am asking to see is the most basic of independent and reliable sourcing. If this person were as notable as is claimed, there should be something more than a note in a highly dubious "Encyclopedia" and what could be a public membership in a science academy. Where is the press coverage? As I have mentioned several times, I will happily withdraw the article if even the most basic of reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GSE was of course under heavy ideological pressure, but it is still the most reliable encyclopedia available in Russian. I would never use it for example to source that Marxism is the future of our civilization, but I see absolutely no reason to doubt when it says that the Volga River has its mouth in the Caspian Sea or that Graftio was a full professor in one of Saint Petersburg universities since 1921 and was elected to Academy in 1932. Furthermore, the Academy is not public. A usual person from the street can not just enter. Even I, a full professor in one of the most prestigious universities in Europe, am not a member, and would probably get difficulties to get elected there. To become an Academy member in Soviet times was the most prestigious possible career for a scientist, better that the State Prize. Whereas definitely there are more sources, and I will eventually add them, I insist that what was available in the article at the point it was AfDed was proving notability beyond a reasonable doubt.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sue: I don't really understand your comments. Several reliable sources have already been added. Notability has been established. I don't mean to be disrespectul, but have you looked at the sources and read all the comments above? Azylber (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Source them into the article so that we can put an end to this. All I am asking to see is the most basic of independent and reliable sourcing. If this person were as notable as is claimed, there should be something more than a note in a highly dubious "Encyclopedia" and what could be a public membership in a science academy. Where is the press coverage? As I have mentioned several times, I will happily withdraw the article if even the most basic of reliable sourcing can be demonstrated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep verifiable information from reliable soiurces. Soviet encyclopedia may be unreliable for propaganda, but for all other things Soviet science was reasonably good and reliable. - Altenmann >t 19:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azylber, It is because of those very sources that I have nominated the article for Afd. I would like to save this article. There is no doubt in my mind that this was a very interesting person. But this article needs sourcing. Good sourcing. Not a blurb from "The Great Soviet Encyclopedia" that makes "Heroes" out of favored people, or an academy that may or may not have had the subject in it's private inner circle as opposed to it's public "club". Is it is too much to ask for sourcing that we demand from every other Wikipedia article? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per all above. A look at Sue's Talk page and comments to Catalyst about "fluffing up page creation counts" indicates a mismatch with the purpose of increasing en.wp's international article coverage. When covering Soviet subjects Soviet sources are acceptable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch! Was that a bite? I do not believe that this article was any part of that discussion. In fact I am sure it wasn't. Please don't make this so personal. My concern here is that the two sources being used seem unreliable to me. That is the beginning and the end of it. I don't understand what the problem is to ask for a bit of additional sourcing. Surely if this person was as famous as everyone is saying, there would be a newspaper interview or something. There is nothing like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am really confused. You refuse to accept the national encyclopedia (the only one at the time) as a reliable source on the basis that it was ideologically controlled, but you would accept an interview in a pre-1949 Soviet newspaper (the guy died in 1949) which were all ideologically controlled at the same level? Or do you want to see an interview in NYT? I am afraid Graftio was never interviewed by NYT.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is The Forbes good enough for you?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but I'm getting a dead link. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is The Forbes good enough for you?--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I am really confused. You refuse to accept the national encyclopedia (the only one at the time) as a reliable source on the basis that it was ideologically controlled, but you would accept an interview in a pre-1949 Soviet newspaper (the guy died in 1949) which were all ideologically controlled at the same level? Or do you want to see an interview in NYT? I am afraid Graftio was never interviewed by NYT.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch! Was that a bite? I do not believe that this article was any part of that discussion. In fact I am sure it wasn't. Please don't make this so personal. My concern here is that the two sources being used seem unreliable to me. That is the beginning and the end of it. I don't understand what the problem is to ask for a bit of additional sourcing. Surely if this person was as famous as everyone is saying, there would be a newspaper interview or something. There is nothing like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have rolled back the closure due to the fact that the discussion has not run the full 7 days. thanx. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.