Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War


 * 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 SPEEDY KEEP; it's been less than a week since the last AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎

 * Comment - This article has been recently considered for deletion at Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution. The AFD discussion was closed on October 15 as Keep. --Richard 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up - The above statement is purely informational and does not reflect my opinion on this nomination.
 * --Richard 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further follow-up - OK, now it does. See my fuller comment below. --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is a hodge podge of facts connected only by the terms, expressions, and historical events, Chinese, Russian Revolution (RR), and Russian Civil War (RCW), covering therefore a three-year span: 1917 (RR) and 1918-1920 (RCW). It consists of what I believe is the original research (OR) of one editor, User:Mikkalai. It relies heavily on primary sources, propaganda, both from the Red Scare period, and from the White Russians who tried desperately to discredit the Bolsheviks. The standard works on the RR or RCW, to the best of my knowledge, do not mention the Chinese. I do not believe there is understanding here of what OR is under WP. I also believe that there is no understanding of notability under WP. There may have been Chinese in the RR and the RCW - but so what? Shall we examine under a separate article every distinct ethnic group within Russia during this 3-year period? Why? Neither historians, nor other authors have done that, to the best of my knowledge. The title itself is contrived and artificial: why not include the period before 1917 as well as after 1921? Finally, one must be extremely cautious when using propaganda published in times of revolutions and civil wars - that's why only scholars are qualified (under WP policy) to make the assessments as to the veracity of such material. The article itself, however, brings in every and any kind of source which either mention or depicts the Chinese in Russia during said three year period.


 * Delete. For all the reasons above. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know (or remember) that 10/15/7 consideration for deletion; whatever the WP rules are, the article has changed in the last four days - and not for the better. --Ludvikus 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't remember an article you nominated and argued vigorously and repeatedly for deletion 9 days ago? Edward321 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy keep, see Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎ for passionate activity of this user. `'Míkka 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons as last time. Article is sourced, and just the propaganda aspects show notability. The consensus from the previous nomination by Ludvikus  on 10/11 closed as Keep. Edward321 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Further research tonight has turned up better sources (secondary ones rather than primary ones and in English rather than Russian or Chinese). While there is at least two inconsistencies that need to be resolved (thousands of Chinese troops or tens of thousands?; significant role or insignificant role?) I am now convinced that the topic of the article is encyclopedic and the amount of OR in the article has been reduced to the point where we can "put it in the bathtub and drown it".  --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Change to Delete--editor states below that he will continue to only speak abusively at the article's talk page rather than discuss in a professional manner. per User:Richardshusr IF AND ONLY IF the editors working on the article actually discuss facts in the article, and answer all questions other editors ask regarding sources and content in a collegial and calm way, without insulting any other editor at all. Badagnani 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nah. I understand why you think that way.  But we gotta separate the article from the personalities of the editors.  Articles stand or fall on their own merits.  Imagine that you were told that all the current editors of the article had died.  Would you vote to keep or delete this article?  If editors of an article misbehave, then block them but don't judge the article by the behavior of the editors.  If we did things that way, we would have to delete half of Wikipedia.  --Richard 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "If the editors misbehave..." Don't throw plurals here. There was one single nasty troll with agenda to get rid of the article out of his militant ignorance devoid of listening to any arguments. And no one said not a single word to him. Of course I was pissed off. This attitude to smear the guilt into an even layer is disgusting. `'Míkka 07:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mikka and Badagnani - please take the discussion of editor misconduct back to the article Talk Page. Editor misconduct should not be relevant to an AFD discussion.  --Richard 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will discuss whatever I want wherever I feel necessary. Trolls may smear my name with shit wherever they want with nobody to wave a finger at him, and I have to sit on my hands. If you are so fond of policing, why don't you speedily close this trolling second AfD nomination? `'Míkka 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because admins who take part in debates are not supposed to also close them. Badagnani 08:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There should be no debate at all, that's the point. The second nomination is clean-cut bad faith trolling. Yet you want to chat. I am ranting because it insults me, but what's your grief? To write n-th time how bad am I and how I refuse to cooperate? Yes, I refuse to cooperate with trolls. `'Míkka 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, if either Mikka or I had kept out of this debate, one of us could have done a speedy close on the grounds that the previous AFD was only 4 days ago. Maybe another uninvolved admin will put us out of our misery.  --Richard 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't have a smoothly operating encyclopedia if an editor (for whatever reason) insists on using garbage words, again and again, instead of discussing sources in a calm, professional way and answering and addressing questions addressed to him regarding these sources. That is called being "Wikipedian," as opposed to "un-Wikipedian." I cannot trust the content added by an editor who refuses, even after being asked courteously several times, to abide by this very simple rule the rest of us follow. Badagnani 08:32, 20 October 2007 (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.