Talk:Porfiry Ivanov

Old talk

May instead be known as PARSHIK-IVANOV.

The "Detka" topic should one day be separated from the Ivanov topic.

This page is truly awful, and should be fixed ASAP or deleted. Quale 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More old talk

Like other people who have found this page, I'm really not sure what to do about it. To say that the neutrality is disputed... is a slight understatement. But I did notice that a couple sections were copied verbatim from http://akbarmuhammad.awardspace.co.uk/ as well as being in a non-encyclopedic style. I am deleting those sections. 66.167.126.222 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC) oops I didn't realize I had been logged out, that was supposed to be:

Aidan (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

To further expand, this is a problematic page that has been largely hi-jacked by long series of anonymous posts (all or most from IPs in Moscow), plus User:Akbaramuhammad (who has no listed contributions other than this page), none of which edits have any interest in Wikipedia policies, notably including neutral point of view. I would recommend rolling this article all the way back to before the questionable edits started appearing; somewhere around http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porfiry_Ivanov&oldid=123315035

But I don't keep up on wikipedia policy anymore, and such a massive rollback should be handled with care.

Aidan (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I attempted to clean this page up as I described above on this talk page. My edit was reverted without discussion by an anonymous editor (and described as vandalism). It is my opinion this page requires significant work to make it conform with Wikipedia policies, and it appears to me that this work is being actively impeded by one editor with a personal stake in the content of this article.

Aidan (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I commend you for the consideration you have shown the IP editor. But you are absolutely correct in your analysis of what is happening with this page. I've read the page quickly, and frankly, it's pretty appalling. It could almost be a candidate for article deletion, but, better, it should be greatly shortened to be just a bio page, without all the propaganda. If the other editor chooses not to cooperate within policy, you would be justified in bringing it up for administrative action. Thanks for working on this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• My thoughts. Keeping an article about this guy with no evidence of him being significant makes me feel that keeping the article is simply unneeded. Speedy delete, and block the IP from recreating the page. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking into this some more, I'm inclined to agree with you about deleting the page, and to withdraw my suggestion of fixing the page (although maybe a short page about him as a cult leader might be appropriate, if it were semi-protected). I've Googled the subject, and while it mostly brings up cult worship pages, this seems like it probably is pretty much what the subject is. I do think, however, that this does not meet CSD, and the denial was correct. I'm going to request semi-protection to keep the IP away, and I'm thinking about AfD. Before AfD, does anyone see a basis for noteworthiness as a cult figure? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I will support an AfD listing (and tried to make one, I'm not sure why it broke). I'm not certain what happened to the template. I think my opinion on the noteworthiness is obvious. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed Irbisgreif's nom; it's now open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porfiry Ivanov. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all. And I've requested semi-protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Which has been declined. We should re-ask, if the IPs try to remove the AfD template. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've described at the AfD discussion (which see), I did a Google Scholar search (pretty much nothing) and a Google News search, with the latter showing that the subject apparently is the inspiration for some of the people who go swimming in ice-cold water during the winter. Any rationale for a (much different!) page about him as the cult figure behind that practice? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is there is some evidence for notability, and it should remain. The article existed as a stub before it was hi-jacked, and I propose returning it to that state. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porfiry_Ivanov&oldid=123315035 is a reasonable candidate. If it was returned to that state and kept from attack by the IP editor(s), it could then be expanded to a brief, reasonable biography article. Does this seem like a reasonable action? --Aidan (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That depends. The old version still lacks sourcing to establish notability. Of secondary concern, it is not clear that we can obtain semi-protection to prevent IP involvement. In any case, you should also raise this point at the AfD, lest the page be deleted contrary to your wishes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The semi-protection was rejected for lack of recent disruptive activity. I would argue that there can only be disruptive activity if people try to fix the article. It would certainly would certainly be easier to just delete the article, but I would rather try to save it first. But I want there to be a consensus (at least among those who show up) on a course of action, so that if it becomes a reversion war, it is clear who is the disruption and who are the responsible editors working from consensus. --Aidan (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bron Taylor's Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, in an entry by cultural anthropoligst Victor Shnirelman, lists Ivanov as having "a few dozen thousand followers" [1]). I think that should be notable enough for for Wikipedia to have an article on him. Just not for it to be written entirely by one of them who prevents any attempt at NPoV. --Aidan (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find it in your link, and I also looked under P and I, as well as N. Where is it? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a note at the end of "Neo-paganism and Ethnic Nationalism in Eastern Europe". Alternatively, a search for "Detka" will take you to it. As a note: I do not argue that such a brief mention makes the topic notable, but that a reasonable source has given a figure for a number of followers which indicates a notable cult leader (especially for a cult whose leader died 26 years ago), roughly an order of magnitude larger than, say, some towns in Poland with their own articles. --Aidan (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found it. I'm not sure where I stand. It does sort of look like a reliable source identifying the subject as having a significant following. On the other hand, it is a very brief mention buried at the end of an entry on a broader topic. (If we do go this way, we would have to figure out how to cite it, because readers will not be able to find it from your link without the kind of directions you gave me.) Please also make a comment on that source at the AfD discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On further reflection, I do think it's a reason to keep the page (but revise of course). As for citing it, it would actually be no problem to do "Shnirelman, Victor, "Neo-paganism and Ethnic Nationalism in Eastern Europe" in Encylopedia...(linked to PDF at site), Bron Taylor, ed." etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps the reason for the RfC has now been dealt with, and the RfC is no longer needed? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

there is a big article about him on russian wikipedia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%84%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 and he was mentioned in some russian books about religious cults. he is not a really significant person but definitely he is well known in russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.168.51 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Still in favor of a delete

I'm still in favour of a delete, but I am moving this article back to the NPOV stub. I'm pretty sure consensus is in favour of that (better than this advert). Irbisgreif (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

With some reluctance, I reverted you. Please let me explain why. A minor reason is that the infobox you tried to add with your second edit made the page unreadable (and something made the template at the top of this talk say wrongly that the AfD was closed). More importantly, even though I actually agree with your rollback on content grounds, I feel that, as a matter of procedure, it just gets too messy to conduct an AfD on a page that is changing that much during the AfD process (also made the tags at the top of the page not make sense). I'm inclined to think the outcome of the AfD discussion will be to retain the page in something like the form you rolled it back to, but let's please keep the page in its objectionable form for the six remaining days of the AfD process. But as I said, I did this reluctantly, and I'm really not finding fault. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

But then again, since it looks like the AfD is snowball-closing as keep, I agree with going back to the short version as soon as the AfD officially closes. In other words, never mind! (smile) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)