Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Primorsky Krai


 * 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 keep. John254 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

History of Primorsky Krai

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.

I PRODded this article, but the PROD was contested, so I am bringing it to AFD, and should note that as well as being unreferenced, it has also been tagged for cleanup since October 2006. Why do we keep such poor quality material? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We keep this poor quality material so someone eventually will come along and finish the job. As a matter of fact it is one of the least populated regions in Russia, and also one of the increasingly important regions. I for one will eventually need it for the articles dealing with the Second World War part of its history which is completely lacking in the article as it is now. I am not going to argue over it since I have no spare time to "husband" the article now, but if you continue with the deletion, I will re-create it at a later stage. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I will have no objection to its recreation if the new article is referenced! (and I'm sure an article by you would be well-sourced). But while I'm sure that a good article could be written on an important region, a wholly unreferenced piece is not that article. 21 months is long enough to wait for a cleanup. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, the article does list a reference. What it lacks are inline citations, no surprise with an article of this vintage. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it needs a lot of wikifying, cleanup, in-line citations, and a general overhaul, but I think that the subject (the history of a large region) is inherently notable. BWH76 (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The day when we start routinely deleting articles just because we are incapable to reference them and/or clean them up will be a sad day indeed.  No matter in how horrible a condition this article is, it contains bits which will be useful to whoever comes to work on this article in the future.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This does look a notable subject and there is at one reference - accepted that its a mess currently, but this article is certainly fixable if worked at by someone who knows something of the subject.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's only necessary to compare the first four words of the nomination with the article to see that this AfD should be dismissed out of hand. The article is referenced. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Phil, the nominator tried to prod this article before AfDing it, and it was completely unreferenced at the time. I added the reference in response to the prod, and believe the Girl simply missed it.  Just an FYI, but don't be too hard on her.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ezekhi, that's correct. At the end of a long edit summary, there was a 4-character note "+ref", and I missed that. I still wonder which parts of the article are supposed to be supported by the reference, but yes, there is now a reference. I still think, however, that without citations, the article is no more than an essay. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Now it is sourced. Whatever shortcomings are, they do not justify deletion.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 1 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.