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.
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 DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 06:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn since the page has been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.
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
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? DBigXrayᗙ20:43, 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 2Does not mention the subject at all. (
see results.) A two line mention in
this snippet that mentions the newspaper's lifespan and its promoters.
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. --DBigXrayᗙ06:49, 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. --DBigXrayᗙ07:15, 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. --DBigXrayᗙ07:20, 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
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
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 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
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.