Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Russia on Wikipedia 
Basic list - Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

Contents
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Russia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding
{{subst:delsort|Russia}}<small>—~~~~</small>
to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Russia.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe

Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


[edit] Russia

[edit] 2008 Georgia-Russia crisis

2008 Georgia-Russia crisis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is nothing in the article that signifies that a crisis is or has occurred. Basically 2008 is really not that different from 2004-2007 in terms of Georgian-Russian relations. The article just basically has things that happened in 2008.

  • Keep. There are numerous publications about this notable subject, as anyone can see from the list of references provided in the article. The crisis is a matter of fact.Biophys (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Independent articles for previous military incidents already exist. As these recent incidents resulted in a military buildup in Abkhazia and talk of war on both sides I hardly see how this does not qualify as a crisis and a significant event deserving of its own article. Also it should be considered that these events together with the enhanced ties are sizable, significant, and ultimately if all accommodated under the article on Georgia-Russia relations would most likely result in a split anyway. The lifting of sanctions, followed by the establishment of legal ties with Abkhazia, is a major development in the situation and preceded these heightened tensions and ultimately are part of the reason for heightened tensions. As such all the information present is relevant to the article and all of it is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Not really, Russia unofficially had sanctions lifted long ago. Now it's just official. Also, you can't really call it a military build up when Russia is going to increase the number of peacekeepers from 2000 to 3000 (within treaty limits). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Nope. There are other troops which operate beyong peacekeeping mandate, such as railway force in the north of Abkhazia and special forces unit stationed in the region's south. Furthermore, the UN mission confirmed unsunctioned flights of Russian jets which engage in fighting with unmanned and unarmed Georgian drones. Anyway, Russia and Georgia were at the verge of war early in May, something that definitely makes the article notable. --KoberTalk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic has been in the news headlines of all media. I'd say few weeks ago "world" was speaking about these crisis. How this article could be nominated for deletion? This article is not based on announcements, sports or tabloid journalism that would be against WP:NOT#NEWS. Gülməmməd Talk 02:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Per WP:NOT#NEWS DonaldDuck (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable topic which appeared in the international media headlines and led to serious international involvement. Pocopocopocopoco, a long-time combatant on Russia-Georgia issues, wants the article to be deleted because the international response was unusually harsh toward Russia. The article's narrative may need some more cohesion, but there is no valid reason to eliminate it at all. --KoberTalk 05:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I fail to see how this article is pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. It is simply unencyclopedic. I suggest you refactor your bad faith assumptions above. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously notable, very important events. It's preposterous that we've now got people citing "NOTNEWS" to justify deleting articles on major world events. If it's in the news, these people say, Wikipedia shouldn't have anything to do with it! I had to laugh at "the article just basically has things that happened in 2008." Everyking (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Plentiful coverage in reliable sources of the present troubles in relations between Georgia and Russia as there has been for other incidents between them for which we quite rightly have articles. Cannot see how this ever meets the 'Routine news coverage' of WP:NOT#NEWS. Davewild (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see a lot of reliable sources, and it seems to be clearly notable. Soxred 93 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep another attempt (out of many) by Proco (who has specific POV against Georgian articles in general). Iberieli (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep A well written article with lots of reliable independent sources like the BBC. Georgia and Russia have indeed been feuding in 2008. Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. From what I have understood by reading the newspapers on this, the crisis level of 2008 is such that war is a serious danger. That is far more serious than a mere news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy

AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia and Saddam WMD allegations
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Sarindar
Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete A poorly named, thinly sourced conspiracy theory in which the same two original sources are stretched beyond breaking point. The page is strung-out with peculiar subheadings, carrying statements from people with no direct knowledge of the alleged plot, but whom speculate on it, and/or flatly dismiss it. What is more, this article is well within the scope of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Indeed, exactly the same charges are described there, and the latter page is better formatted, well written and immaculately sourced. The same cannot be said of Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy. Nor has there been a concerted effort to correct the many problems with said page, despite expressed concerns on the talk page, and today, with the other page a better example of the same controversy, there seems to be no point. In addition, this page is orphaned [1] whereas the other one is not. [2] ~ smb 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Further, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [3]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [4]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. This, "Operation Sarindar", is the basis for the whole page. ~ smb 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a well publicized theory, it doesn't have to be true as long as it has been extensively covered by reliable sources, and it has. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That is not a considered answer. Editors are not required to judge whether the conspiracy is true or not. Please read and consider the points raised above in favour of deleting said page. ~ smb 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I have not done any such thing; it is true it does not matter if its true or not, that is exactly my point; as long as it has reliable sources discussing it, and it does, it should have an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • And my point is that it already has an article. The rest is incoherent. ~ smb 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War giving undue weight to one particular theory. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a very unusual argument for an AfD. WP:UNDUE problems can only exist within one article. If one thinks this article does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (the definition of UNDUE), this should be fixed by adding missing views.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain your reasoning. As this is not a vote, if you don't provide a reason for your opinion, it will probably be discounted. Corvus cornixtalk 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge with "WDM teories...", per wp:undue victor falk 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is simply a sub-article of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War; not a content fork. Texts in the articles are different if to compare. This is third AfD nomination. Nothing changed since two previous AfD discussions. The article is well sourced. Nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss mergers.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I am not proposing merger, but deletion, because everything of value is already described on the other page. This one is superfluous to requirements, serving no useful purpose. ~ smb 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete it sucks --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it's notable - PietervHuis (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And that is why Wikipedia has a page that covers this topic. However, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [5]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [6]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. Not that you really care. ~ smb 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete notable... anti-Russian propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Then is should be marked as notable "anti-Russian propaganda" and kept.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
but wiki is not a soapbox for propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"Operation Sarindar" is not notable. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the only person who says "Sarindar" existed. ~ smb 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhail Abyzov

Mikhail Abyzov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is not notable; speedy was denied because admin couldn't read russian refs (neither can I); admin advised an AfD  Chzz  ►  06:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Being a Manager of an unreferiable Russsian company is notable. If notability can be established in Russian, then the appropriate wiki may be used. However, I doubt it. Rotovia (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the admin who refused the speedy deletion. Notability can be established using sources in other languages, provided they are reliable sources. The problem is that I can't tell if the sources are reliable or not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, the E4 is really a big company (the biggest engineering company they claim on their site), but the guy is not the President he is just the Chairman of the board. The company is a holding that means that they have bought a few Soviet time companies that are more or less self-govern, thus, they are much less prominent then their subsidiaries. The guy was indeed proclaimed "The best young manager of Russia" in some year, they have references, it may be seen as a claim to notability. But on the other hand we do not have an article about this E4 group nor about their President. It is weird to have an article about the chairman of the board. The article is badly written as a resume or commercial advertisement. In other words I don't see the reasons to delete the article nor any convincing reasons to protest the deletion. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep E4 big company JukoFF (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salvation Union of South Ossetia

Salvation Union of South Ossetia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced. Not notable. A google search only yields two hits that aren't wiki mirrors and one of those hits is a general timeline of 2006 which gives this organisation minor mention and the other hit also gives this organisation minor mention. The article was created and written by a user indefinitely blocked for copyright infringement (with minor copyedits by others) so it might also be a concern that this article is a copyright infringement. This organisation fails to meet WP:ORG as there is insufficient coverage in secondary source.

  • Delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable: only two references included in the article, one which barely mentions the party, and the other which doesn't mention it at all. This probably should have been prod'd. (It was speedy'd, then prod'd, and now it's here. Silly me.)--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know what Google search was done above, but mine returned the following; [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Россавиа Диалог 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I did a search on "Salvation Union of South Ossetia". I guess your search picked up other variants such as "Union of Salvation of Ossetians". I'm sticking to delete given the circumstances behind the original author indefinite block and the fact that the article is unsourced. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. You haven't found it on google because you were not searching in Georgian. If this is the political party/movement of the former Prime Minister, there's bound to be sources etc. that establish notability. Find them and fix it, don't delete because its received poor coverage in U.S. papers. MrPrada (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment This is the English Wikipedia. How many editors are going to be able to search in the Georgian language?--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, there seems to be some confusion over the actual name of the organization, a quick google search for Union, Salvation, Ossetian gives quite a clear picture that this is a relevant and notable party. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, try a Russian google search, [17]. BBC has coverage on the party. --Soman (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable organization which unites ethnic Ossetians who want reunification with Georgia. The party has also organized "South Ossetian people for Peace movement" which yields no less than 600 hits via Google Search [18] [19]. User:Pocopocopocopoco has long been targeting the articles which deal with pro-Georgian Ossetian movements. His rationale for deletion is fake.--KoberTalk 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Just because I nominated another article in a similar topic area over six months ago you then conclude I am targeting the entire topic for deletion? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, stop pretending Poco. Everybody knows what you do. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep per Kober. —Nightstallion 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kober. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
  • Keep per Kober. This deletion request is POV pushing. Iberieli (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (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.