Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Mirrors

Add links
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. TigerShark (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False Mirrors

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

False Mirrors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is completely unsourced and Google search turned up no mentions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Russia. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Russian article about this book has been deemed to be of "good article" quality. I took a look at the sources in the Russian version, and while I don't speak Russian, running a few of them through machine translation shows there's quite enough there to build an article – since this is a Russian topic, we shouldn't assume the sources will be in English. We have a list of ambitious reviews and essays in Russian magazines (an example), as well as references to printed sources I can't access. /Julle (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This begs the question: if we can't find any sources in English, does it meet notability for English WP? We're discussing this same issue on another AfD of mine for Don't Leave.... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have very clear guidelines on how we treat sources in other languages than English in Wikipedia:Verifiability: all other things alike, we prefer to refer to sources in English, if they are of equal quality. But we don't require English sources, and AfD discussions don't require us to have them.
We can't build an international encyclopedia only using sources in English. Most of the world is primarily, often only, described in other languages. Part of the magic of Wikipedia is that we can use those sources and make the information available in – for example – English. /Julle (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can still come to other conclusions, of course; the fact that an article exists in one language doesn't mean that the subject meets the requirements of English Wikipedia. But having glanced at the sources of Russian Wikipedia, I'm confident this one does. /Julle (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To give another example, the main page is currently (through Today's Featured Picture) linking to Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Vilnius, which is exclusively supported by sources in Lithuanian. But it's still something we want to put on the main page and point our readers to. /Julle (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author's article? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author. What we have here is entirely plot summary, maintenance-tagged for over a decade, so redirecting is a sensible solution. If someone wants to come by and build a full article or even a better-sourced stub later, they can do that. Honestly, I'm not excited about this solution either, since as far as I can tell this book has never been translated into English, so "False Mirrors" is a false title - no book exists by this author under this name. (There is no entry for it in the British Library or the Library of Congress. LoC does have the Russian title though: [1]). So I wouldn't argue against delete either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: With some help, I've now added basic reception and publication history pieces from the Russian article, addressing the comments above. /Julle (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- the redirect arguments seem to be largely saying "This article is currently bad" not "this topic isn't notable." AfD is not an appropriate place to litigate article improvement needs.
    matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. If the Russian version is a GA, then this is notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And so we come to this issue again: is notability universal? This book has never been translated into English. Let's say I pick an American author who's never been translated into Russian and create Russian WP articles for all of his work. How soon do you think they would get redirected? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, notability is universal.
    We decide where we want to draw the line for notability and that might differ slightly from other language versions, of course, but the availability in English is not a factor. English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about the entire world, written in English.
    I think you severely underestimate the amount of articles in other Wikipedias about literature that isn't translated into the language of the local Wikipedia. To take an example from my native language, w:sv:For the Time Being isn't just one of many articles about works of literature not translated into Swedish, but also given FA status. /Julle (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your answer. I asked this in a previous AfD and nobody said anything. Next question: how well known is this piece in Sweden? I'm curious why someone would create an article for Swedish WP. (And yes, I know most Swedes are bilingual in English...which explains a lot.) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/False_Mirrors&oldid=1099495822"