Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National delimitation in the Soviet Union


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

National delimitation in the Soviet Union

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced page, non-encyclopedic quality and apparent copypaste thus copyviolation. I am unable to detect source though, or any references to those words so it could also be plain original reasearch. Suva 06:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * strong Keep. Very encyclopedic. A possible reference is, e.g. here, and the book content is searchable. Hardly copy/paste: Language is sloppy. The term "national delimitation" is in use, you probably have to learn to use google. I noticed this articles earlier, and made note for myself to add references, but forgot about it: a huge amount of work in wikipedia. I do not blame the nominatior, but the proper approach would be to announce this article at Russian wikipedians' notice board. The article topic is valid to anyone who has reasonable knwoledge of Soviet history.  `'Míkka 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so strong keep. It does look kind of suspicous but I think that rather than copyvio we're looking at more of a case of someone dropping a school essay on us. Normally I would suggest deletion of such material on the grounds of being one form of WP:OR or another, but given the source mentioned above (and assuming good faith that the references given in the article are used correctly) it does appear there is an encyclopedic topic here. The article needs the attention of someone familiar with the topic (or at least with access to the references) to clean it up and bring it to encyclopedic standards. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I wanted to make the same notice about school essay. Like I said, I noticed the text, wrote a proper intro for it, but quickly forgot about it (me getting old). I will put it onto my to-do shortlist. `'Míkka 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic seems to be valid, especially when applied to the Central Asia. Article is poor, but it is a reason to work on it, not to delete it. RJ CG 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Yes, there was a Bolshevik ideological principle regarding the creation of the regions of the USSR, and it's notable and encyclopedic, but this is something of a POV essay and really needs serious work to comply with policy. It should probably be renamed, but I'm not sure to what just now. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Bolshevik ideological principle" is called the right of nations to self-determination. If there is a POV here, is it because this (or the sources used) was written by some American who never read his Lenin -- Petri Krohn 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to rename: what's with you guys, not reading others? Chukcha not reader? It is the actual term, used in books on the topic, in particular, listed in the references. `'Míkka 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This appears to be lifted verbatim from a textbook or someone else's essay, probably Andre Haugen. Mandsford 00:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This AfD seems to be part of a pattern of disruptive editing now discussed at Requests for arbitration. -- Petri Krohn 00:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Kick with vengeance. This vote comment belongs to a pattern of harassment from the editor that brought Wikipedia the Big Sock Fishing, and dared to present audacious lies to the Arbitration Committee themselves. Digwuren 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's an ugly article at present, and certainly looks like an essay, but it's on a topic which is notable. What little I know about the way the USSR worked tells me that this was a very important thing indeed, but unfortunately I can't claim enough knowledge to pitch in and improve the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Strongly POV essay ("Why did the communist rulers of the USSR need to create a national consciousness among people, given that it is generally used by the bourgeoisie to curtail the class struggle?" That's objective fact, is it?). Heavy on jargon, light on concrete detail. Seems to accept Soviet claims for the motives behind policy at face value. (Incidentally, the Soviets also decided ethnic groups such as the Mingrelians didn't exist virtually at the stroke of a pen, as well as lumping unrelated peoples together in ASSRs). In short, a bad article. It might be possible to have a page on this subject, but this isn't it. --Folantin 11:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that there's at least one Russophone editor who's signalled a willingess to improve this article (or overhaul it, I guess) in this AfD alone, I'm inclined to say that it won't be POV soon enough. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Important topic. Dominictimms 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per assertions on notability made by other editors above; it seems like a valid and important enough topic in the context of Soviet history. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This thing is not only non-encyclopædic; it's worse: it, built like an fact-relaying essay, depends on the reader sharing certain inaccurate assumptions regarding Soviet ideology.  The topic is notable*, but a good article can not be built atop a fundament this rotten. Digwuren 18:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current shape. It is a POV essay. If it is kept it needs a rename and a through overhaul.--Alexia Death the Grey 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a valid historical topic, and lists 3 apparently relevant books as sources. --Coppertwig 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a genuine subject of which I know little. The article describes a policy, which was implemented and is thus a valid topic.  However I would have liked to see more about the categorisation of individual Soviet citzens by nationality (if that is not a differnet subject altogether).  Being a poorly written article is grounds for improvement, not for an AFD.  Peterkingiron 17:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable and factual. — Nightstallion 08:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now it is bad, I agree, but not desperately, and the topic is legitimate. Don't be afraid that it will eventually turn into something with a pro-Soviet POV. It won't, if expanded. Moreover, its existence is important for a discussion of Soviet ethnic policy in the 1930s-1940s. Colchicum 10:23, 27 August 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.