Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography in the Russian Federation


 * 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pornography in the Russian Federation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:TNT this mess of WP:OR really needs to go, though I don't doubt a neutral article on the topic could be written. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR BobLaRouche (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is definitely content for this subject. Article needs cleanup and renaming (History of pornography in Russia). Fatty wawa (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * trully shit article fully deserving of a dose of tnt, Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per TNT. Unsourced or poorly sourced, plenty of original research. The "article" consists of unrelated sections that have only Russia in common. It doesn't actually say anything about pornography in Russia, does it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- largely unsourced original research; not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The topic may be notable, but this article ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete can be marked down as one the lamest articles of Q2 2017. L3X1 (distant write)  21:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Random facts garnishing original research do not an article make. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominated --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:16, 18 April 2017 (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.