Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as a major power

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 of the debate was Delete all per consensus. It seems one or two people may want a userfy; in which case, just give me a buzz on my talkpage. — Deckiller 01:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia as a major power

This page, along with the additional related articles underneath, violates WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:NOR. These articles (along with a number of others) were nominated for deletion in March 2006. That debate led to no overall consensus, but general agreement that the pages required drastic reform (see the deletion debate). Since then these three articles have remained very much the same.

Essentially these pages are relics of various NPOV/OR disputes in the Major power and Superpower articles. They have seen very little editing, good faith or otherwise, and are not significantly linked to. I propose that verifiable content should be merged into the Russia, Japan, and Brazil articles and the articles themselves should be deleted.

For the foregoing reasons, I wish to add the following pages to this nomination:

• Japan as a major power
• Potential Superpowers—Brazil

Xdamr^talk 06:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Verifiable Content and Delete, per nomination Xdamr^talk 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, they read like essays, which violates WP:NOT. Also fails WP:NOR and WP:V (unsourced). Merge anything useful. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 06:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-02 08:44Z
• Delete all WP:NOR, WP:REDUNDANT_VER_SPAM,WP:CRUFT. Ste4k 09:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all speculation and essaying. SM247^{My Talk} 10:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Wikibout-Talk to me! 22:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason as last time. Valid topics for articles as shown by books, scholarly papers, media coverage etc. --JJay 22:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as POV forks. It looks like some effort has been made to improve the Japan article ... but even in that one, there isn't a single citation. If there are no sources given, then it's assumed to be original research BigDT 00:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Unsourced content, but very valid topic. --TJive 05:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as poorly sourced speculative essays. Anything of value should appear in the countries' main (or other subsidiary) articles. --MCB 05:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NOT --RevolverOcelotX 05:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with no concensus for keep, but a concensus for cleanup, and all that unsourced information it needs to be removed. We don't keep bad articles because the topic is notable if no one cares about them. If and when someone cares enough about the topic to create the article appropriately it can have a home here.--Crossmr 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think the content is too far-fetched. Not enough coverage or relevant outside source to support such views. Created for nationalistic reasons. Heilme 10:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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.