Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priashevshchina

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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priashevshchina[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A newspaper that published for a few years, with nothing to state why this is notable. My own searches did not bring up anything that can prove notability. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn since the page has been expanded 4 times since the nom.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep, notable article subject. Played a key role in articulating Russian/Rusyn/Ukrainian national identity at a crucial stage in history. Googling in Ukrainian gives a lot on hits on google books, notably. --Soman (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Soman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. (participant clarification)--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:LOTSOFGHITS. If the newspaper did extraordinary things in its short lifespan, then it should be easy to show how it passes the WP:ORGCRIT (which is a higher bar than GNG for Orgs). Without hard evidence stating WP:Clearly notable and WP:Assertion don't really help the AfD.DBig Xrayᗙ 08:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an acceptable stub on a historic newspaper. For example, this source indicates notablity: Occasional Paper - Issue 6 - Page 34: Its newspaper, Priashevshchina, was published in Russian, but approached problems from a Ukrainian -- or at least local -- point of view. Members of the intelligentsia, which was still under strong Russian cultural influence, acquired literary ... --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman, I really want to understand what others are seeing that i am not. Your link looks like a passing mention to me. Do you believe that historical newspapers will easily pass notability with such refs while contemporary newspapers need a higher bar? DBig Xrayᗙ 20:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per K.e.coffman and the sources shown in the article which pass the GNG. If the nominator is looking for "extraordinary things" to be worthy of keeping, that is not how the GNG works, nor is the fact that the paper "published for a few years" an indication of a lack of notability. WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago. Nor is WP:NNEWSPAPER a good argument for the same reason, and in fact has a subsection Wikipedia:DEFUNCTNEWS for this very reason. Spokoyni (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni, I hope you do understand that passing mentions don't prove WP:GNG. The concern here is lack of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and not that it published for just few years. You are claiming that any newspaper (including political mouthpieces such as the subject of this AfD) automatically passes Wikipedia's notability criteria simply because it got a few passing mentions. This flies in the face of WP:N

The source + quote mentioned above by Coffman is clearly a passing mention with no evidence of notability from this quote. It only confirms the paper existed.

Let's take a look at the refs in the article.

ref 1 mentions the paper but the publisher of this source is "Центр. ком-т Культурного союзу укр. трудящих в ЧССР" (Cultural Union of Ukrainian workers in the Czechoslovakia) which is an ethnic organisation (similar to a political party.) So this publisher isnt an independent newspaper and can be considered an SPS.
ref 2 ~~Does not mention the subject at all. (see results.)~~ A two line mention in this snippet that mentions the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters.
ref 3 Only a one line WP:Passing mention that says "The paper was shut down"
ref 4 does not mention the subject see search result
ref 5 is again a one line WP:Passing mention. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray, has the possibility of multiple ways to transcribe a non-Latin script name into Latin script occured to you? --Soman (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely what I am saying, and as has been shown on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golos Pravdy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trud, Zemlia i More, your attempts to apply WP:ORGCRIT and assertions of failure to meet GNG are not upheld by the community. Your assessment of the sources would be more convincing if you had some knowledge of the subjects you were trying to argue. Ref 2 for instance is clearly not in cyrillic, so your search using Пряшевщина of course turned up nothing. Try this. I am concerned that you have either cherry picked the way you searched that source, or WP:Competence is lacking in how you approach the matter of sources. Spokoyni (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spokoyni I stand corrected on ref2. But even in this snippet I can only see a 2 line mention about the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters, please explain how you are calling it as significant coverage. Please refrain from WP:ADHOM and attacking the AfD nominator, without providing evidence. If you have rebuttals to my assertions on sources (like you shared for ref2) please present them I will be glad to hear them and if convinced I am ready to withdraw the AfD, but at the moment there is nothing AFAICS that proves the notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it hard to maintain good faith when I see such evidence of canvassing at [1], [2], [3]. Snippet view shows you four lines, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend that the mention stops because the snippet view doesn't show any more than that. This just shows the weakenss of your approach to rely on current google returns for sources for historical subjects. Ref 2 shows that this subject has its own entry in a national encyclopedia. I see that as establishing notability, you see that as a passing mention. And you really must stop trying to suppress disagreement with your POV by claiming that you are being the subject of personal attacks. I can see that's getting very short shrift from several editors, and I would be prepared to join them in an official complaint. The evidence I provided was that you had, at best through lack of competence in handling the sources that were presented, inappropriately dismissed a source. Spokoyni (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not meet the definition of canvassing, see Wikipedia:Canvassing which explicitly says that placing a message at "the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion" is appropriate. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Thanks Mr. Vernon) Spokoyni, Please familiarize yourself with WP:CANVAS before falsely accusing others of Canvassing. WP:APPNOTE states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. I would suggest you strike off this inappropriate accusation of canvassing. your comments are more on WP:ADHOM and less on the topic of the AfD, hence I requested for fresh perspectives from appropriate wikiproject.. I really don't want to go offtopic, So I will ignore the rest of your comment. Another thing that You pointed in your first comment that you believe the contemporary newspapers are involved in advertising using PR professionals, don't you think that this also happened in past. Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:VOTESTACK. DBigXray has selected those projects which seem most likely to agree with his point of view. There have been no notifications to the Russian, Slovakian, or Ukrainian projects. And this is "Or do you really believe that there was no advertisement in the past ? That is quite a shocking assumption." what is called a strawman argument. Spokoyni (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikiproject newspaper so the next relevant wikiproject that cover newspaper topics were alerted.Spokoyni you yourself stated above that "WP:ORGCRIT clearly states it is for organisations "with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion." Which is hardly appropriate for a historic journal that as the nomination notes ceased publication many years ago." Aren't you stating that historic journal did not indulged in advertising or promotion ? I am simply pointing this obvious fallacious argument made by you. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, how do any of those projects imply vote stacking? That article says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." How would posting to the talk pages of WikiProject_Politics and WikiProject_Organizations be considered selective and why would those projects be biased against this newspaper? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and analysis of the hits turning up in Google Books mentioning the newspaper in passing and it not being the subject of coverage per WP:GNG. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, DBigXray tagged number of the references in the article. I provided quotes at Talk:Priashevshchina. Two points in particular to note, Наукові записки mentions Priashevshchina on 18 pages, so there could definitely be scope for expansion for a person with language skills and access to the journal in full. And in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Priashevshchina is given a full entry of its own. --Soman (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Magocsi mentions the following : "012 Duklja, Vol. XXXIII, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Edited by Fedir KovaC. Presov: Kul'turnyj sojuz ukrajins'kych trudjaSCych CSSR, 1985, 80 pages each issue. This volume contains relatively fewer scholarly articles in comparison with previous issues. Among the topics dealt with are life in the Presov Region during the first year after World War II, by Ivan Vanat (No. 1); the role of the newspaper Prjasevscina (1945-51) in the literary life of the Presov Region, by Mychajlo Roman (No. 3)" so... if anyone would get their hands on this publication, there is definitely expansion scope. The fact that the newspaper has been the main topic for academic articles should be taken into consideration in the AfD debate. --Soman (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: quote: "After the end of the war, several events had a very positive influence on the development of literature: The newspaper PrjaSevSCina started coming out towards the end of the war and creative individuals grouped around it. In addition to covering politics, the newspaper stimulated the development of literature." (Sirka, 1978, p. 31, https://books.google.co,/books?id=WwuxAAAAIAAJ ) --Soman (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: http://www.clovekaspolocnost.sk/jquery/pdf.php?gui=5FLUAWHCYZ7IG5CZU4GB4U9W : "Po roku 1945 začalo vychádzať niekoľko ukrajinských časopisov a novín. Medzi najvýznamnejšie, na stránkach ktorých sa objavovali články o ukrajinskom národnostnom školstve patrili: Prjaševščina, Demokratičeskij golos, Karpatskaja zvezda (Karpatska zvizda), Nove žyttja, Družno vpered, Duklja. Spomenieme aj Hlas ľudu hospodársky, kultúrny, spoločenský a politický týždenník, ktorý vydával Krajský výbor Komunistickej strany Slovenska pre prešovský kraj v rokoch 1945 – 1950 a následne jeho pokračovateľom sa stali noviny Nový život, ktoré vychádzali do roku 1957. Obdobie šesťdesiatych rokoch 20. storočia je vdobovej tlači výrazné svojou početnosťou článkov o ukrajinskom školstve na Slovensku." (quick translate: "After 1945, several Ukrainian magazines and newspapers were published. Some of the most prominent pages on the Ukrainian national education system were: Prjaševščina, ...") --Soman (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, https://www.rusyn.sk/data/files/23.pdf , pages 28-29, has material on the role of Priashevshchina in propagation of Soviet annexation of the region, and the reaction of Slovak authorities. Someone with better language skills could adapt the material better than me. --Soman (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that a newspaper that survived six years in those turbulant times is notable. Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, https://books.google.com/books?id=rtJAAAAAYAAJ p. 640, states "Okrem slovenských periodík vychádzala tlač pre občanov ukrajinskej národnosti. Z jej štyroch časopisov mal vedúce postavenie týždenník Prjaševščina (25.3.1945-28.6.1945)" Google translate: "In addition to Slovak periodicals, the press was published for citizens of Ukrainian nationality. Of its four magazines, the leading weekly newspaper was Prjashevshchina (25.3.1945-28.6.1951)". So whilst this can reaffirm the notability of Priashevshchina as the major Ukrainian publication in Czechoslovakia at the time (someone please double-check the Slovak translation...), it gives slightly different dates of publishing than other refs. --Soman (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per K.e.coffman. The sources currently in the article are fine and the very fact that "A newspaper that published for a few years" (70 years ago) is mentioned at all shows its significance. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable enough to have its own entry in Encyclopedia of Ukraine (p. 216). -Zanhe (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The brevity of the mentions in several sources is irrelevant for establishing notability. What the newspaper represents is what establishes notablility, not the verbosity of the sources. Inclusion in another encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia. Websurfer2 (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. That it has an entry in a reliable tertiary source makes this a slam-dunk by any standard, but even without that, this is clearly an encyclopedic topic with adequate coverage to support a stand-alone article. Even if we supposed for the sake of argument that the GNG creates a ground for deletion rather than merging (by its own terms, it plainly doesn't), the sources cited earlier in the discussion would already have been more than sufficient. -- Visviva (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawing nom since the page has been expanded 4 times since it was nominatedDBig Xrayᗙ 07:31, 16 February 2020 (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.