Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problems with Russia (1900)


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower hablamé 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Russia (1900)
A clever essay, but an essay all the same, and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see No Original Research. Chick Bowen 22:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, its an essay.TheRingess 22:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete an essay in the form of a historical document ("The Problems Facing Russia From the Viewpoint of an Imaginary Minister"). Kusma (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR -- Saikiri~ 22:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Save Rewritten well
 * Unsigned vote by Newscientist, article's creator. - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it is still an essay, and not an encyclopedia article. Delete, or possibly merge useful content (if any) elsewhere. - Mike Rosoft 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR. 'nuff said. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What is the problem?* With knowledge of the subject this now reads in perfect accordance with fact --Newscientist 23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article argues for a particular point of view, that the 8 problems you cite are the main problems. If you were to cite scholarly consensus for those 8 being the most important, fine.  But it's only your own research that supports the idea.  I invite you to read the Wikipedia policites we've mentioned here, particularly No original research, Cite your sources, and  Verifiability.  You're welcome to improve other Russia articles.  Russian history, 1892-1920, for example, is based entirely on a Library of Congress site; adding information based on other cited sources would be very useful.  Chick Bowen 23:40, 6 December 2005 (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.