Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NKVT


 * 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 -- nominator withdrew in light of WP:SNOW opinion to keep. — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

NKVT

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unreferenced very short article about a Soviet ministry. Speedy as test edit declined by EurekaLott. PROD contested by otherwise uninvolved editor with rationale "of course we should have an article on a government ministry in one of the world's largest countries." I agree with the basic principle of this - we should have information about such a ministry. But there's simply not enough encyclopedic content to justify having an article. Furthermore, even if that content is there, it's unsourced, and I couldn't find anything. What is justified is a blurb in the Council of the People's Commissars article on each of these little ministries, not individual articles at this time. Note to anyone else doing an English-language Google: I'd advise searching for "People's Commissariat for Water Transport" instead of "NKVT"; I didn't find anything useful about the ministry that way, but some interesting things about the people who've headed it popped up. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I worked on the article, and now it is a referenced stub. I am inclined to keep it, but if it is to be deleted please move the info into the relevant article, like Council of the People's Commissars.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Well done, it is much improved. Nonetheless, I feel that what you've done is brought it up to be verifiable. I still don't feel that it meets the general or specific notability guidelines. I'd be totally cool with merging your work into the Council article, or possibly (per User:My_very_best_wishes below) into Soviet Navy. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes's point is that this is distinct from the Soviet Navy - it is the former ministry responsible for civil shipping, not military. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're entirely correct, I misread their statement. I would be in favor of the merge into the Council of the People's Commissars, then. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a department of entire Soviet civil fleet (right now Soviet fleet redirects to Soviet Navy). Expand. There are many sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here, and this is, per basic common sense, an encyclopedic topic. I would suggest that the nominator follow the excellent advice that he himself offers on his user page: 'before editors suggest keeping, deleting, merging, redirecting, forking, or creating an article, they should consider the very simple question: "Does this option improve and enhance Wikipedia more than any of the other possible options?"' Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply: I thank you for the compliment concerning my userpage mini-essay. I endeavor to follow that advice constantly. In this case, my opinion is that the best possible option in these conditions is to discuss this topic and closely related topics in a single broad article - the Council of the People's Commissars - because I believe that we can create a Good Article (possibly even an FA) out of that, versus however-many start-class or stub-class articles we could make for the individual Commissariat articles. I note that I did not nominate any of the others for deletion - that is because I happened upon this one in New Page Patrol, and the others by and large did not have their own articles yet. To sum up my tl;dr - I think that this is part of an encyclopedic topic, not its own seperate encyclopedic topic. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Other users have significantly expanded the article and sources have been added to it, as of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - An historical topic that appears to have received significant coverage in reliable tertiary book sources. The article is well-sourced at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Northamerica1000. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 04:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly meets WP:GNG. After this discussion closes, it would probably be best to consider renaming to People's Commissariat for Water Transport.  Haus Talk 13:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to withdraw in the face of clear snowball consensus to keep and an excellent WP:HEY improvement of the article. My personal opinion still leans towards a merge, but I no longer have a problem keeping it. Feel free to close this discussion at any time. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 17 May 2012 (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.