This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
DotesConks,VTrail,Jay8g, I'm starting this discussion before (sort of) this goes into full edit warring. For what it's worth, I would completely agree that when the reviews for one book become the bulk of an author's article, that's definitely undue weight. As was stated, the book already has its own article, which would be the proper place for those, and even there the reviews are more concise. All that should really appear here is something like "The novel was very well received by critics". -- Fyrael (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyrael I wasn't a big participant really. VTrail's edits are definitely undue weight and a COI there. I reverted it hoping it would work itself out but I would like to participate in the discussion. DotesConks (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not my edits, I am simply putting back what was unfairly and devaluingly removed. Go to the pages of Ishiguro, Ferrante or McEwan. You will see the same picture there: an emphasis on good criticism, if it is in authoritative sources. 213.55.223.199 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking the Atomic Cityin this article has weight, since we are talking about a lot of great reviews in the world press that the book has received over the course of eight years. The argument about promotion and self-advertisement would be appropriate if these were some local newspapers from Ukraine or Nebraska, but we are talking about the most significant publications in GB, Italy, France and significant publications in the US (Wall Street Journal, etc.). Therefore, I'm confused by such strong and sudden attention to this article, which began on March 20, 2025.
So, I suggest:
1. Return the version of the article from March 19, 2025;
I propose to return the version of the article of March 19, 2025. On March 20, the methodical deletion of part of the article began. Without explanation or counterarguments, the article was blocked for editing.
The deleted part of the article is completely consistent with the tone and presentation of the pages of Kazuo Ishiguro, Elena Ferrante, Ian McEwan and other writers. Are we dealing with a biased attitude towards the writer Markiyan Kamysh? Norton1666 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are clear arguments, which I just described above, according to which the deleted part of the article was significant. You can read them now. "Consensus" here sounds like a bit of manipulation in a case where there are no counterarguments. Norton1666 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
