Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novostroika

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 EDIT, or no consensus if you prefer. -Splash^talk 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novostroika

del. An article obviously written by a Westerner who doesn't know Russian language (probably based on a newspaper article written by a similar ignorant). In Russian language "novostroika" simply means "new construction"/"new construction site", without any alleged relation to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and hence the term bears no specifically "Russian" flavor. mikka (t) 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:V. -- Krash (Talk) 03:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Name is incorrect but text isn't at all useless. So move to Post-Soviet residental construction or smth like that or incorporate to another article that I don't know of but do not delete. --Irpen 05:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The text is useless in its primitivistic form, especially for such a general topic you suggest, to cover problems, changes (eg in financing and techniologies) and developments. Not to say that "post-Soviet" is radically different in, say, Estonia, Russia, and Turkmenbashistan. You may want to start from simpler things, such as Evroremont. mikka (t) 08:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Note that article was created by User:Mno, who is fluent in Russian (and Ukrainian), and who was born in Kyiv. Slight query of the good faith of this nomination. Possibly move to another name as per Irpen. Proto||type 10:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Something makes me thing that he is not quite so fluent. Nomination is solid good. I've been using this word for 55 years now. Also suggestion to look in to any Russian dictionary. mikka (t) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Not arguing with Mikka about the term, just want to say that user:Mno is indeed fluent in Russian nd Ukrainian and is indeed a Kievan. I corresponded with him by email in Russian. He made a mistake all right but the article is worth something. So, I'd still move it with all due respect to the nominator. --Irpen 19:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Google image search makes it look like the term is used to describe apartment buildings [1], but I also found this claiming that the term is Mongolian in origin. I'm kind of inclined to doubt the credibility of that claim based on the other Google hits, though. ergot 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment to all comments. "Novostroika" is "new construction". Period. It can be new factory, dam, apartment building block, office building block, a whole new town. mikka (t) 18:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I will say that you are free to do as you wish. The topic does have a lot of issues. However, I would argue that what I originall wrote was giving a relatively accurate view of the subject after the mid-90s. I was wrong in not mentioning that a literal translation is "new construction". Sure, remove the second paragraph, and rearrange the first. The last paragraph comes directly from the Russian Governments television report in the news on RTR. In response to personal attacks that I don't speak Russian, I do. Thank you to Irpen for pointing that out. I was born in Kiev and do speak both languages fluently. Such personal attacks without any proof whatsoever should be considered as proof to question the attacker. (Ironically, part of the original nomination was lack of proof.) mno 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK I made mistake about the knowledge of Russian by the contributor. It was simply beyond my understanding how a Russian native speaker would write Новостройка is a term used to refer to Western-style apartment buildings, which is so obviously wrong. It is just like to write "Russian poetry is a term used to refer to literary works of Alexander Pushkin". But the key phrase from the article is "The most, and usually only, difference is the fact that there were constructed more recently".
    • My reasoning behind this now that I think back over it, is that I wanted to emphasize that they were not necessarily better than the old buildings. You are right, the most important point has to be that it simply means new construction, and perhaps ideas from the rest should be moved elsewhere. :) mno 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This says it all. If one wants an article about Residential construction in Russian Federation, it must be way better than that. There is no big deal for the original author and those who support him, to salvage what is salvageable from the text, do a little bit more google search and start a new, decent article for an important, but missing topic. A single RTR news report is not enough. Also, please don't forget to list the sources; see wikipedia:Verifiability. Not to mikka (t) 21:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, there is even no Residential construction in wikipedia at all! Even Construction article has no such section. mikka (t) 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Just to add: I generally do not just publish something and let it be there. I always ask for comments from others indirectly by announcing my articles somewhere. Perhaps announcing it only on the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements was not enough, considering the breadth of this article. There was no response from anyone, and now there is the motion to delete the whole article. Why not instead cut it to make it what is should be? As some others pointed out, there is some text there that could be scalvaged. Regarding RTR: of course, it's not enough for the whole article, but it is proof, regardless. mno 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. (from another native Russian speaker). The usage of the word "Novostroika" I am most familiar with is to refer to the areas of the cities containing mainly apartment complexes, usually built in the last 20 - 30 years. Often these areas are very different from older parts of the city. The word existed (with the same meaning) even before the collapse of the USSR. Not sure if it deserves a separate article in Wikipedia. I removed the mentioning of the collapse of the USSR from the article, so it should not bear on the decision to delete or to keep the article Vlad1 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Vlad. I think that since now we have significant attention on this article and topic (which is actually a very backwards way to give it attention, but that is partially my fault, too), I would like to propose that we not delete the article but rather work on it to make it viable. Maybe split it into several sections or articles. If you still feel that you don't want to have the original article visible through the history, then I guess that would be OK if we delete and then recreate it. However, I don't see any point to this, as I'm sure there are articles that have had a lot of incorrect information in them not be deleted but rather changed, with the history still there. mno 03:25, 2 March 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.