Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychological operations (Russia)




 * 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 moved back to draft and move-locked. The primary contention is not that the topic lacks notability, but that the article as constructed fails to meet standards for moving to mainspace. There is substantial consensus on that point among discussion participants other than the editor who moved it to mainspace in the first place. The article will be move-locked so that administrative review will be required before it can again be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 03:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Psychological operations (Russia)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Almost unsourced, seems to violate No original research completely. Translated from the Russian Подразделения Психологических but without the additional sources of that article. Moved to Draft space where it could be worked on but moved back to main space, I think prematurely. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete page is essentially unreferenced with only one non-RS and creator's page says they are retired so unlikely to be improved. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. While I don't doubt that the country does have such a program, we need neutral sources to confirm it does. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dear, "Translated Подразделения Психологических but without the additional sources of that article" - it is original research? You could transfer the sources from the original article yourself . Are you aware of the template's existence? Best regards, --Pavlo1 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell if it is original research because of the absence of reliable sources verifying the content. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Each field of activity has its own authorities. Dienko, Kolpakidi, Sever - are not authoritative authors, from your point of view? Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Special Services "Intelligence and Counterintelligence in Persons" («Разведка и контразведка в лицах» — Энциклопедический словарь российских спецслужб) - not authoritative sources? Pavlo1 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) P.S. Maybe you consider the subject of the article irrelevant to Wikipedia?
 * I don't speak Russian so it is hard for me to fully evaluate the state of the Russian article. I didn't say that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on this subject. My only comment is that I think the page was moved out of Draft space too early. Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You an't competent in the subject of the article, you cannot assess its notability; don't speak the language and cannot assess the quality of the translation and the credibility of the sources. And you make such bold conclusions! The incompetence of editors is the main problem of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Unfortunately --Pavlo1 (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If I let insults get me down, I would have stopped being an admin a long time ago. I'm sorry that you are offended that I nominated this article for deletion but it would have been better if you had spent the past week improving the sourcing so it didn't look like a page of original research. I don't need to know Russian to see that. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment An editor coming in and making personal attacks aren't likely to sway votes their way. Instead of casting aspersions, Pavlo1, why don't use the template you referenced and transfer some sources or improve the article to bring it up to standard? In the meantime, I'd say either Delete or move to draft until such time as the article can be improved. Intothatdarkness 02:01, 18 March 2022 (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.