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 delete. After boiling off the excess discussion about the award and the AfD at ru.wp, the consensus is clearly to delete for lack of notability. —Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Zagraevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). I put some more comments on his talkpage. See also deletion discussion for Mario Zampedroni - he is listed as the sole source of that article on a non-notable artist. Jane (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Ozolina, who has written the article, is the press secretary of Zagraevsky.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is interesting. so probably that whole Artists rating page should be deleted too. I noticed they only have about 50,000 artists, and I can only guess what percentage of that qualifies as "apprentice". The BBC's Your Paintings website has about 30,000 painters hanging in museums, and assuming they have mostly English artists, then this 50,000 is not nearly useful enough, plus it's a closed list. It has in any case not been useful on Wikipedia, because these articles are practically orphans. Jane (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whereas I see how one can argue that Zagraevsky is notable, I do not see how the Artists rating can be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Garden of articles. There's another one: Artists Trade Union of Russia, which publishes United Art Rating edited by Sergey Zagraevsky. Trade Union was founded by Zagraevsky who is the Chairman. I'm dubious any of these are notable due to the circumstances of article creation (COI) and lack of reliable sourcing in searches. However, it's Russian and I don't read so there may be reliable sources others can find. If we do find nonotable, also need to remove COI entries created by User:Ozolina in other articles like Paul Cadmus, List of trade unions, Richard Haas, Alton Tobey, Rainer Maria Latzke, Alyona Azernaya, Mario Zampedroni. Also check out this discussion, the reliability of these sources has come up elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to his bio, "his works [are] in State Tretyakov Gallery, State Russian Museum, many other museums and private collections." If true, this would pass WP:ARTIST #4 "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is no evidence about it; for example, I searched Заграевский (his surname) in both museums (State Tretyakov Gallery and State Russian Museum) and there wasn't any result. It is quite likely that "his works" in museums and private collections are fake information based on nonexistent reliable, published sources. Jmvgpartner (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article went through an AfD on the Russian Wikipedia in 2012.[1] The result was Keep due to his winning the Honored Worker of Russian Culture Federation which was considered a significant prize. That would be WP:ANYBIO #1. Many other sources were posted in the AfD and on his wiki page. Probably the Russian version of the article needs to be translated to English. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To further add, the closing admin at the Russian Wikipedia determined this topic is notable based on a lengthy AfD investigation there. The closing rationale was because the Honored Worker honor is significant. I trust that judgement is probably accurate since no one challenged the closing admin or renominated the article. Further, the Russian AfD and article are so loaded with sources it could probably pass on mere WP:GNG grounds alone. COI is not a reason to delete, only a reason to examine sources and content more closely. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing admin said "The first source confirms he won the заслуженного работника ("Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation"). The "source to confirm" he won the award is here.[2] It appears to be an official press release from the Kremlin. Signed by President Medevdev. This appears to be a significant honor (confirmed by the Russians at the Russian Wikipedia) and passes WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Russian Wikipedia does not consider the Honoured Worker to be sufficient for passing WP:GNG. The closing admin must have been plain wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And accidentally he was later desysopped for gross policy breach on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "gross policy breach" in the Russian AfD. If the admin did something to get de-admin'd then they would have investigated past problems and fixed it. Or someone would have challenged the closure, or attempted a new AfD - none of those things happened. Attacking the admin is a logical fallacy that doesn't negate the position that the award is sufficient to pass ANYBIO #1, it's given (or announced) by the President of the Russia to a limited number of recipients, the award is of national scope and has a long history. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a Russian Wikipedia administrator for two years and closed thousands of AfDs. There is no policy which claims that Honoured Workers are notably. On the contrary, ru:Википедия:Кавалеры высших наград государства does not list them as notable. The closure was clearly erroneous, and, as I mentioned earlier, the closing admin was subsequently desysopped by the arbcom, in particular, for having no clue while summarizing discussions. Instead, Zagraevsky should have been evaluated against WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That list is the very highest honors of state. The rule the admin cited[3] is more inclusive and not limited by such elite awards. You say the AfD should have been only evaluated along GNG, but then what's the point of having other notability guidelines, we have multiple paths to notability, not just GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikipedia may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia, so, we can not assume that its rules apply here too. We have to evaluate if Zagraevsky meets the standards for notability here, for example, as mentioned in WP:CREATIVE:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors: as you can check, there is no proofs.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: as you can check, there is no proofs.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: as you can check, there is no proofs.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: as you can check, there is no proofs.

So, If the 'only one' argument (the Prize) is shaky, how can we evaluate his 'automatic' relevante? In fact, the rule governing this award does not provide background to support 'automatic' relevance. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear, I am not saying he is not notable, I am saying the distinction of the Honoured Worker is not sufficient to establish notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Again, it seems that there is no evidence about notability; in fact, according to Russian Decree of December 30, 1995, that prize does not grant automatic relevance:

Почётное звание «Заслуженный работник культуры Российской Федерации» присваивается высококвалифицированным работникам учреждений, организаций и органов культуры, искусства, образования, полиграфии, печати, радио и телевидения, участникам самодеятельного творчества и лицам, участвующим в работе организаций, учреждений и органов культуры на общественных началах, за заслуги в развитии культуры и работающим в области культуры 15 и более лет.

So, I don't think that it would be WP:ANYBIO #1, because it isn't "a well-known and significant award or honor". Also, Ozolina, who has written the article, is the press secretary of Zagraevsky, and she provided most of the links and info: WP:CONFLICT. There is no evidence about his works in State Tretyakov Gallery and State Russian Museum for example.

By-the-by, Artists Trade Union of Russia —who was written by Ozolina— was deleted in ru.WP where Ozolina wrote and defended the article. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To further add, the Russian AfD and article are so loaded with sources written by Zagraevsky himself, thus, it seems that it couldn't probably pass on mere WP:GNG at all. How can we assume WP:NPOV when he written most of its "sourses"? So, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and in other cases, that fact qualifies for CSD:G11.

Remember, A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources, so, other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, because I was thinking the article about the rating was completely bogus and that maybe the Artists Trade Union of Russia could stay. Now you say *that* one is bogus. Sigh. I suppose I should go read all of those other links posted that were created by User:Ozolina. Isn't there a central place to do this across projects? Like give the Ozalina ones to the Spanish Wikipedia to study, and we'll do the "created by Zagraevsky" ones? It's so much work! Jane (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If we look at the last version of this article by Ozolina [4], we see that the article was much better and more informative than now. Since that time it was going worse and worse. Of course, the last version without paintings and bibliography must be deleted. If the article will be kept I think that it must be kept in full version. The subject is really well-known in Russia.--Temp400 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  First edit of this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not true. I work in Ruwiki for long time. I've entered here because of strange discussion here: [5]. It has also started from English WIki, someone wrote in Commons that Zagraevsky does not exist, that this person is a fake: "The references are not reliable. For example, you can see that all the references come from the personal web of Заграевский, Сергей Вольфгангович. If not, the references are in web sites where everyone can edit his own name. There is a Library but the founder of the library is the same Zagraevsky. I know because he is in all wikis y all languajes and I've made a research of all the references. Those books don't exist. For example, you have in german many books but all of them were printed with information from Wikipedia in German: diff. All books are from source Wikipedia." And in parallel is the discussion here. Very strange situation, isn't it? Joke or smth else? One can see Zagraevsky, for example, in Youtube, he appears at TV very often. But I repeat that the article in current condition should be deleted or re-written considerably. --Temp400 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the good advice. I've made a summary version of good English, art and bibliography. I think that the problem is that the subject has activities in different professions, so many people want to see only one of them. For example, German Wiki left only architecture history, because he is a professor of it. But I think that art must be noted too, though many people do not like Primitivism. Of course, now I vote for Keep. --Ozolina (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Strip out all the linkspam, and the unsubstantiated content and stuff only from WP:SPS,and we have next to nothing left. Maybe the author can improve sourcing to a level which is satisfactory to us. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability concerns, non-encyclopedic. Come back when you're ready...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What can I do if there is a great number of Russian sources (some of them are in references) but almost no English ones? I thought that English Wiki is international as English language, so the people well-known in their countries must be included even if they are not known in USA or UK. If I'm mistaken then delete, of course. And then I'll forget about English WIki because it will become not interesting for me. I can work for Russia, my native country, or for the whole world, but not for US or UK, sorry. --Ozolina (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian sources are fine on English Wikipedia it makes no difference they count equally. It is possible to read them in English using Google Translate (not good translation but good enough to verify) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as Russian sources are reliable they are perfectly fine to use.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made some new references to different scientific and other web-sites. One more thing: I do not understand why Russian Wiki criteria of significance of Honored workers in different spheres, including culture [6], does not work in English Wiki. It is like Legion of Honor in France or Sir in UK. --Ozolina (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Russian Wikipedia does not have a criterion that Honoured Workers are notable, either.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are misrepresenting. English Wikipedia does not have a static list of notable awards that only count in AfD, nor does the Russian Wikipedia. We look at the award and judge based on criteria such as how old it is, who gives it, who has received in the past, and how rare it is - all in the context of the specific article under discussion. This award is given by the President of Russia to only a few people a year. Within the class of people who receive it, regular teachers, it is considered a very prestigious honor. You may disagree with that opinion, but don't say the award is not on some static list and therefore not notable, it doesn't work like that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My point is exactly this: The fact that someone received this award does not make the person automatically notable. Not here and not in Russian Wikipedia. The rest is plain wrong: there are many more than several people who receive this wawrd annually. This is why articles on Honoured Workers are routinely deleted on the Russian Wikipedia, if there is nothing else to prove notability. Also, you are not correct in saying there are no wawrds that make a person automatically notable. For example, members of National Academies are notable - and Zagraevsky, incidentally, has never been elected to the National Academy. In the context of specific article under discussion, the fact that Zagraevsky owns a paper signed by Putin does not prove anything at all, whatever you think about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well since "articles on Honoured Workers are routinely deleted on the Russian Wikipedia" do you have an example of that? Look at the "what links here" for previous deletion discussions. The only thing I see is one case that was Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

village pump discussion, one more, not yet deleted, but see what is consensus in this discussion, deleted, kept, see discussion and closing comments, keep decision overturned, the situation is very close to what we are discussing here. Should this be sufficient to convince you that I am somehow familiar with the Russian Wikipedia policies after serving there three years as administrator? If yes, may be it is time to stop this discussion and turn to Jane's arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Here is the information about his scientific achievements (Google translation from here [7]:

The main range of historical and architectural research SV ZAGRAEVSKY - Old white-stone architecture, rannemoskovskogo architecture , architectural connection of ancient Russia and the Roman- Gothic Europe. The topic of his doctoral dissertation - " Architecture of the North -Eastern end of the first third of the XIII- XIV century."

The scientist managed :

- To specify the dates , the initial appearance , a number of other issues, the architectural history of the cathedral - the Assumption in Vladimir, the first of the Assumption ( Ivan Kalita ) in Moscow, Spassky in Andronicus monastery of Nativity in Suzdal, St George in Yuriev-Polsky , Demetrius in Vladimir, the Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubov , Old St. Nicholas ( Peter and Paul ) in Mozhajsk ; churches - the Intercession on the Nerl , Trifon Naprudnom , St. Nicholas in Kamenka , St. John the Baptist at The Settlement in Kolomna , Nativity of the Virgin in Gorodnya , Boris and Gleb in Kideksha , the Saviour in Vladimir, Nikon in the Trinity Sergius Lavra , Metropolitan Alexis ( Crucifixion bell ) in Alexandrov , Golden Gate in Vladimir;

- To reconstruct the process of production of white stone in the pre-Mongol Vladimir- Suzdal ;

- Show an incorrect version of the coming to Yuri Dolgoruky building the farm of Galich and determine a direct impact on the architecture of the times Dolgoruky Western Romanesque ;

- To show the key role in the development of Yuri Dolgoruky in Russia Romanesque ;

- To show that the white-stone architecture of ancient Russia was not just building techniques , and expressed the state power and imperial ideology ;

- To show that the direct source of ancient Russian architecture was the imperial Roman cathedral in the German city of Speyer ( Speyer ) ;

- To investigate the origins and circle the buildings of the architect that was sent to Andrew Bogoliubsky Emperor Frederick Barbarossa ;

- Clarify the issues of reconstruction and dating of the palace-temple ensemble Andrew Bogolyubski in Bogolyubov ;

- To show the inapplicability popular in the late twentieth century, the method of drawing up schemes transition building the farm as a self-sufficient basis for the dating of the temples ;

- Define Hellenism as the dominant aesthetic ideology of pre-Mongolian decor of Vladimir- Suzdal churches ;

- " Shed light " on a number of specific features of the ancient architecture of the late start of XIII- XIV century , which is traditionally considered the " dark years ";

- Define the " limit of reliability" of ancient Russian church architecture ;

- To allocate a number of characteristic features of ancient architecture of the end of the first third of the XIII- XV century , allowing it be called the era of " Russian Gothic ";

- Bring new architectural and archaeological evidence dating fidelity four ancient temples Alexander settlement 1510 ties - the time of Basil III;

- To determine how likely the New Aleviz 's ancient temples Alexander settlement ;

- To bring additional arguments in favor of the origin of the stone architecture of the wooden tent ;

- Follow a chain of "nearby " and "distant " grand , and then the royal estates of the XVI century by Ivan III to Boris Godunov ;

- To show that the bulbous shape of the heads of the church appeared in ancient Russia for the first time in the world and has been the most widely-used already in the XIII century, and helmet-shaped appeared much later as the " imitation of the old days ";

- To explore questions of genesis Groin vault and show that it was invented by the ancient Russian masters ;

- To determine the universal ( especially architectural ) purpose the shelf (chorus ) in the ancient temples ;

- To show that in ancient Rus' were common " defense " monasteries and temples.

If the article is kept, I'll translate this into as normal English as it is possible for me )) and include it into the article. Now I do not want to waste time if the article is deleted. Ozolina (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not a reliable source though since it can be edited by every registered user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Dear Ymblanter, Ruwiki HAS such criterion [8]:

1.Деятели немассового («высокого», серьёзного, актуального, элитарного) искусства — писатели, переводчики художественной литературы, музыканты, актёры, режиссёры, художники, фотографы, скульпторы и т. д., — пользующиеся устойчивой или противоречиво-скандальной репутацией в своём профессиональном сообществе, — независимо от их известности широкой публике. Доказательством такой репутации могут служить: 1.наиболее весомые, авторитетные и престижные профессиональные премии и другие награды (почётные стипендии, почётные звания и государственные награды в области искусства, избрание в состав авторитетных академий

Figures of non-mass art and culture [edit source code]

1.Deyateli non-mass ("high", serious, contemporary, elite) arts - writers, translators of fiction, musicians, actors, directors, artists, photographers, sculptors, etc., - are in steady-contradictory or controversial reputation in his professional community - regardless of their fame to the public. The proof of this reputation are: 1.naibolee weighty, authoritative and prestigious professional awards and other awards (honorary fellowships, honors and state awards in the field of art, election to the prestigious academies)

--Ozolina (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you noticed that the quote does not mention Honoured Workers. Neither other policies do. What is understood by state awards can be anything, and again I am sure you know that Russian Wikipedia does not recognize notability of anybody who ever was decorated by the state.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[9]:

Заслу́женный рабо́тник культу́ры Росси́йской Федера́ции — почётное звание, входящее в государственную наградную систему Российской Федерации. Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation - the honorary title, part of the state premium system of the Russian Federation.

I've just shown that there IS a criterion of significance of state awards in culture for Ruwiki and that Honored culture worker IS a state award in Russia. There is no such criterion in Enwiki so I cannot insist formally on article keeping. I shall not die if the article is deleted, Zagraevsky too ))) But my opinion on English Wiki as a really international source will change, sorry. I thought that, by idea, if an article exists in national Wiki it must exist in English Wiki. --Ozolina (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you, being a COI editor, seem to miss the point. A Honoured Worker is indeed a state award. The same way as the medal "30 years of labor" is. There are millions of people in Russia who are decorated by the state. Therefore, the state decoration does not make people notable. Not in Russia, not in the US, not in the UK, not in Paraguay. The policy which you cited only states that state decorations can contribute as a proof of notability. And they obviously do it in a different way. Someone who has got a State Prize of the Russian Federation is more likely (in fact, almost certain) to be notable that a Honoured Worker, and a Honoured Worker is more likely to be notable than someone who has a medal "30 years of labor". But it does not create notability automatically.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you want my opinion, it should be easier to prove that Zagraevsky passes WP:GNG than that he is notable as a scholar.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advice. I've done what I could, gave references, and Wiki-community will decide what to do. There are different features of notability in all national Wikis, but if you had known Russian well enough you could have seen that a person with a state award in culture does not can, but must be in Ruwiki. It is a criterion. Honored worker of culture (or police, construction, law etc.) is not like "30 years of labor", it is a special honor for special people, like Legion d'Honneur, given not automatically. Well, it will be really no problem if the article is deleted, because 2 months ago Zagraevsky became a member of Russian State Academy of Arts [10], there is yet no reference on Academy's site, but as soon as it is appears there I'll restore the article and give the reference. I hope that it will be a decisive argument. I've saved the article so there will be no problem to restore. --Ozolina (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I closed thousands of AfDs in the Russian Wikipedia, and I know that what you say about the Honored workers is not correct. Academy of Arts is obviously a much more serious claim.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Ymblanter, I've looked at your page and seen that your native language is Russian. Then you must know that there are no state awards in Russia only for years of work and all awards are given individually - "for services to the development of culture". And if you are Russian, why don't you offer in Ruwiki to delete the article about Zagraevsky? Where is your logic? May be, you are sure that the Russian article will not be deleted, so you are trying to delete it at least from Enwiki? May be, it is something personal? --Ozolina (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you please abstain from personal attacks in the future. I said above that I do not necessarily support the deletion, and this was not me who proposed the deletion. I actually did not vote on this page. However, I strongly oppose the notion that every Honored worker is notable. This is against the policy. I suggest that you read the whole discussion, since I have already made all these points at this very page. Concerning the Russian Wikipedia, I do not really care what happens there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement that there are no state decorations in Russia given for years of work is incorrect, and you can easily check it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • May be such decorations exist in army or police but not in culture. Honored worker of culture or anything else IS NOT given only for years of work. And for Ruwiki EVERY Honored worker in non-mass culture is notable. In the discussion above I've given all references, our colleagues can look who of us is right. Let us end this useless discussion.--Ozolina (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Your references do not actually support your statement. The usual ru.wiki practice is that People's workers are notable, Honored workers are not (solely on the basis of distinction).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    May be we should indeed stop arguing though, I am confident that the closing admin will read the discussion, and the ru.wiki policies are irrelevant here anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozolina and Ymblanter, the problem is not whether Honored worker is enough to base a Wikipedia biographical article on. The problem is that the article claims he is a painter and an architecture writer. To support THESE claims, we need 1) link to notable paintings and 2) link to publications. Jane (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, it was a lifetime achievement, given to people with 35 years of service, relevant to some of the activities discussed in the article. I agree more sources are always nice to have but for the purposes of notability, WP:ANYBIO still applies here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dear Green Cardamom (talk, just to note that 35 years of service - in Russia it is "Veteran of Labor", and it is not a decoration but a pension status, so absolutely other as "Honored worker". And the subject is too young for 35 years of service, he is only 49 ))). Thanks for WP:ANYBIO reminding. --Ozolina (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : You have to remind WP:CREATIVE too, and WP:CONFLICT. Besides, don't forget that Russian Wikipedia may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia, so, we can not assume that its rules apply here too, and if the 'only one' argument (the Prize) is shaky, why do we have to assume automatic relevance? so WP:ANYBIO doesn't apply, because Honored worker of culture IS given only for years of work or other lightweight reasons, which I won't mention [here] again, just read Russian Decree of December 30, 1995. "Lifetime achievement"? I don't think so. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability concerns, non-encyclopedic. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 22:12, 16 September 2013 (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.