Talk:Nationalization of PrivatBank

New page patrol peer review
, I'm rather glad you chose this article, as this was actually an article that I came across while reviewing and passed on as I wasn't sure what the correct move would be. If memory serves, it sits in a sweet spot of lots of information across more-or-less primary sources, with a clear potential redirect target. I'm curious about what your thought process was w/r/t keeping the article vs. redirecting it again. Also, it seems like the linked ruWiki article is currently having an AfD discussion, with the consensus heading towards keep as of this writing. signed,Rosguill talk 20:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I considered that most of the sourcing issues had been addressed, to the extent that most sections where now suitable footnoted; although, as noted, a good many of the sources are primary. (The "History" section is still largely unreferenced, but the requisite sources could be ported from PrivatBank.) The difference to the version redirected by seemed sufficient to put it over the "acceptable" threshold. That being said, I wouldn't be suprised if someone more familiar with the subject could poke some holes into the detail level and provenance of the material. I note that the ruWP AfD is not exactly getting high-quality !votes yet; "has sources, meets GNG" - looks familiar... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean I think it's important to think about Notability of topic as opposed to just what's in the article now. We are not overrun with econ fans creating bad articles on banks in the same way we have music fans creating poorly cited stubs about albums or songs. So I have a lot more tolerance and would be heavily inclined to accept what seems like a notabile topic with bad sources - even with the obvious redirect target. This is a case where I might tag a section or two in addition (or instead of) just the article as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)