Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Inevitable Revolution

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Inevitable Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There does not seem to be any basis for a separate article. Tolstoy published a great many pamphlets and essays, and there's no point treating one separately unless there is some indiction that it is in some way particularly influential. DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: OP here, and yes, agree, and I'll try to add some more info tonight. However, I was only following the way that the Leo Tolstoy bibliography page is already currently organized, with only titles and no information about the titles, as What Is to Be Done? (Tolstoy book) and The Light Shines in the Darkness on that page seem to be similar in content to my new article. Anyway, I'll be trying to improve all of the Tolstoy bibliography pages to better standards, it's just how the page is right now already threw me off. Thanks for mentioning. Let me know if I'm mistaken. Uprisingengineer (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I think this work would satisfy WP:NBOOK criteria 5, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study." Tolstoy is certainly an exceptionally significant writer. So I think the question is, what is most useful for readers to navigate? If there are several minor essays that would have some grounds to be clustered together, maybe some level of merging would be better, though in making those groupings there is a danger of WP:OR. Or I personally don't mind a short article if it covers the subject thoroughly and meets notability criteria. Not everything is War and Peace. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarifying note so it's not just my assertion that Tolstoy is important -- there is a Tolstoy Society of North America, which publishes a Tolstoy Studies journal, founded in 1988. My university library shows 581 books with "Tolstoy" in the title. His works appear on thousands of syllabi. All of these factors, I think, demonstrate that he is a common subject of academic study. If we compare him, for example, to Charlotte Turner Smith, a very important Romantic poet who has formed the basis of several scholars' entire careers, Smith has no society or journal, appears in only 132 book titles, and only a few hundred syllabi. I expect his exceptional significance is even greater in Russian-language sources. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Tolstoy is extremely notable , I'd say famous, and I think that's the general world-wide consensus . But what he's mostly famous for are his long novels. That doesn't mean that every minor work of his justifies a separate article also, tho it would mean that any book length fiction of his would, even if it was relatively minor, and I'd accept a similar argument for every individual short story. But he also wrote a large number of polemical pamphlets, such as this. . NBOOK5 has to be interpreted with some degree of reason, DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Regardless of the merits of the NBOOK#5 argument, this seems to satisfy NBOOK#1 and WP:GNG. This article in the Tolstoy Studies Journal discusses The Inevitable Revolution extensively, and the articles by Salmanova (Салманова) and by Pats’orka and Koshechko currently cited in the article appear to do the same (based on the abstract and keywords respectively; I can't read Russian). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you had redirected this to an annotated bibliography, I would have supported it—better to attempt redirection/salvage before coming to AfD. I have yet to find reams written on this specific essay, unless it's in Russian somewhere. But there is enough significant coverage to warrant a separate article: Poltoratzky 1964 has a section on the circumstances surrounding the essay and Hamburg 2013 has a section on the essay's contents. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:17, 8 June 2021 (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.