Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obrazovanshchina

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obrazovanshchina

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

WP:N This appears to be a term invented by Solzhenitsyn meaning "pseudo-intelligentsia"; insufficient evidence that this term is really used in English. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the term indeed got his notability from Solzhenitsyn polemics, 40+ years ago, but now it is reasonably widely used in discussions related to the modern Russian culture and history. Seach gives 134 references in English books, 33 references in academic piblications. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a valuable addition to our list of articles relating to social class and intelligentsia specifically. Also well referenced. Poeticbent talk 06:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alex B.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2014; 13:47 (UTC)
Keep. Hey, Alex, nice to pass by you again. And - you are right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the responses. I am persuaded that "delete" is probably not the right thing to happen. But I wonder whether this is really best as an independent article, or could be included as a section within "Intelligentsia", of course with a redirect as well? It seems to me that otherwise the number of people who will realistically read this is vanishingly small. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I know quite a few articles with vanishingly small readers (in fact, I wrote several hundred of them myself :-). The page is wikilinked from "intelligentsia" (and from some other pages), so readability is not an issue. The concepts are pretty much separate, and WP:NOTPAPER rule allows them to have their own life. The goal of wikipedia is to make information searchable and available, rather than to push it down readers' throats, so the number of readers is not an issue beyond various wiki pissing contests ("most visited page", editcountitis, etc.). - Altenmann >t 04:08, 13 March 2014 (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.