Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Siberian Curse

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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Siberian Curse

The Siberian Curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• deleteAbsolutely nonnotable neologism `'Míkka 16:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Changed my vote after being convinced that the article is salvageable in the form of book review. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —`'Míkka 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to have significance and verifiable sources. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Keep. Instead write an article on the book from which this expression comes and also mention it in the article on Siberia. My suggestion has been taken by the article's creator. Steve Dufour 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. As the creator of the page, I refrain from voting. Nevertheless, the term "Siberian curse" is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies. The creation was made from that impression. On demand, I will write an article about the book. Sijo Ripa 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrote the article to a book article. Still any objections? Sijo Ripa 11:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I changed my vote to keep. Steve Dufour 16:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was asked about my opinion after the refocusing the article. I agree this was a right thing to do, but regretfully I am staying with my opinion. There are more books written in the world then wikipedia articles yet. I failed to see that book made a sufficient influence. Of course it was reviewed. All printed books are reviewed. The question is whether the book was influential enough to be spoken about among experts. I also doubt that the concept "is a widely known and used concept in Russian studies": the evidence is not presented. What is more, in my uneducated opinion, the concept is sensionalist and false, and I am quite sure that many dwellers of, say Novosibirsk or Tomsk or Vladivostok will spit in the eyes of the book authors. Many Siberian towns have been built and thriving way before Russian Revolution. The authors have one of this stupid stereotypes that Siberia is all snow and bears. Chinese and Koreans and Japanese don't think so and trying hard to squeeze their nose into Russian Far East and Siberia. `'Míkka 21:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most books get reviewed. However not all books get a review in Foreign Affairs [1], International Herald Tribune [2], are often cited in the Financial Times [3], or are written by Brookings Institution fellows. Almost all google links refer to academic journals/articles/reviews, university/think tank sites (Columbia university, American Enterprise institute, Berkeley, University of Maryland, etc.), and university course readings. I think this means that there is some influence and knowledge about the book. Also, the book is included on another encyclopedic website: www.encyclopedia.com [4] For the second half of your comment: I don't think that any Wikipedian's opinion about the validity of any book's content is in any way relevant. I can imagine that their thesis is debatable, but an article cannot be rejected on that ground, rather a criticism section can be added. Sijo Ripa 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I started from what is relevant for voting: reviews are insufficient. Discussion/importance is sufficient. Yes the second half of my comments is my opinion. The book canot be ejected on this ground, but this is a ground to inspect the notability of the book more thoroughly. From what I see book is not a historical text which adds a e knowledge about facts: it is a text to promote a certain pet theory of authors, which is pushed by them in numerous articles. The question is whether this theory is notable enough to be discussed by other researchers in places other than book reviews. I will have nothing bad if you prove me wrong, but this must be done in the article text, not in this chat. `'Míkka 22:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

At least there seem to be some people who care about it. :-) Steve Dufour 00:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of non-reviewing academic articles that discuss or refer to the article can be found here: [5]. If required, I will add other database results. Sijo Ripa 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Colleague, what we need in wikipedia is not a list of casual citations of the book, but an evaluaiton of its contents by a notable expert in politology, kremlinology, etc. I have no doubts that the book with a catchy title have made sume splash. Regardless the outcome of the vote, a wikipedia article needs reliable, independent sources that judge the book. Now the article haws none: "International Herald Tribune summary" is written by an author; "google books" is a bibliographic rather than encyclopedic. ref, and "foreign affairs" ref is written by a Robert Legvold (who probably deserves a wikipedia article), but is is just a quick summary of the book, lacking any evaluation of its quality or significance, i.e., it is not a critical review. Another approach to prove notability of the book would be to prove that Fiona Hill or Clifford Gaddy are notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Then automatically their opinion (expresed in their book and numerous articles) becomes notable. Colleague, please understand I am not at all an enemy of Fiona Hill. It is just wikipedia has no other means to maintain its quality of information: opinions of wikipedians don't matter; only published opinions of recognized experts do. We have to require this referncing, otherwise wikpipedia will be flooded with articles about books or other products of nonnotable kooks and crackpots and other useless and even misleading nonsense. `'Míkka 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I never assumed anything else than good faith, Mikka, so I don't think you are an enemy of Fiona Hill or the book. I have to convince you that the article is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Plain and simple. However, in general I do disagree that a book needs a positive critical review by a notable expert to be notable. There are many reasons why something can be notable, including that a book made a splash. -- Finding reviews about the book was fairly easy, accessing them is another thing as most require (purchased) login rights. I still have found some: Harley Balzer, Victoria Levin, Hiroki Nogami - please let me know whether you think the reviewers are notable enough. To be honest, I think that many negative reviews can be found as well. Sijo Ripa 21:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "positive". I meant a "real" review, i.e., not just a summary of content. Anyway, your efforts convinced me. Now you have to make a real article using these reviews. `'Míkka 21:33, 8 October 2007 (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.