Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia as an emerging superpower


 * 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. W.marsh 01:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Russia as an emerging superpower


Article violates WP:NOT (crystal balling), WP:OR, WP:V. Basic premise is not sourced, nor are any of the various statistics. Entire article little more than duplicate material from Russia and its associated articles. X damr talk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that no notable neutral source has been provided for describing Russia as an emerging superpower. As it stands, this article is one person's OR.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom,  X damr  talk 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This has been deleted before and should be deleted again. --Wildnox 23:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Article was just created and appears to be a valid stub.  Similar articles exist for China, India, and Europe.  I see no reason not to give it a couple of weeks to be expanded and appropriately sourced.  If it isn't, we can reconsider at a later date. Shimeru 23:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (Copied this from the other AfD that was accidentally listed. Shimeru 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment to the first admin who sees this (not directly related to AfD discussion): You may want to speedy-close the erroneous double-nom. All of the comments have been moved here. --Czj 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as notable and encyclopedic. Add citations and fix the sentence fragments so it reads more like an encyclopedia entry than a brochure. --Czj 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This arcicle is OK. LUCPOL 23:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The article title is a thesis. The article is an attempt to justify the thesis.Sethie 00:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - unfortunately, this looks like original research, since currently things are pretty shitty. However, as appropriately pointed out above, some other arguable superpower candidates have similar articles, so why single out Russia? Let's delete the other ones first. Guinness man 01:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - in response to some of the others above. Firstly, this article possesses no source while the others possess 100 or so each. Secondly, Russia is not discussed in the media as much as the other nations which have such articles are. I don't think anyone can vote KEEP justifiably unless a notable neutral source is provided which describes Russia as an emerging superpower.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps with less discussion, but not with no discussion , although "re-emerging superpower" might be more apropos.  And in response to the first objection, this article is a day old, while the others have been here for around a year.  It seems to me to be in a very similar state to the original versions of the China and India articles.  Why the strident opposition to allowing it some time for expansion and sourcing?  If that doesn't happen, by all means, renominate it, but it seems a bit soon to declare that nothing can possibly be done with it, without providing any evidence toward that assertion.  And to the above editor, given all of your contributions to India as an emerging superpower, it's a little puzzling to me that you'd want to shoot down this one so quickly. Shimeru 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. Call me back again for more comments if you nominate the others. Dekimasu 07:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Original research is not the same thing as unreferenced. Tag this article for improvement and give it a chance to unstubify itself. --Dhartung | Talk 14:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Essay. The POV concerns cannot be addressed as the whole concept behind the article is biased. There are two emerging superpowers - India and China. Looked at over a sufficiently long time span Russia is still in reletive decline due to its demographic problems, so this article can never be anything but nationalist special pleading. Hawkestone 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, the long-term trends are not good. As a result I very much doubt that any editor will be able to provide reputable sourcing for the basic premise, which should lead to deletion. The only aspect that presents potential cause for optimism is the 'energy superpower' argument - essentially Russia turning into a petro-state. This may or may not come to pass, but either way, 'energy superpower' is a slipshod journalistic term, it does not equate to 'superpower' proper.
 * X damr talk 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; There are other articles of this nature for nation-states such as China and India. However this one is missing references of any kind. (If it was properly substantiated with references, then I would gladly change my vote.) Also since Russia was already considered a superpower prior to their economic collapse, the article title doesn't make sense. The subject should be regarding Russia's potential return to superpower status. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia was the primary constituent part of the USSR, however a pretty hefty and strategically/ economically important chunk of the former USSR is now independent, outwith Russia's direct control.
 * X damr talk 22:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I could see the facts being merged into Russia, but am of the opinion that the rest of the article is original research or a point of view - a "thesis" as someone earlier suggested. --TheOtherBob 01:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. Also the term "superpower" becomes obsolete in modern politics. It was good during cold war. Mukadderat 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mishmash of trivias, facts of low relevancy, exaggerations (population declined /rapidly/ when the Mongols raided). Predicting the future using last century criteria of coal, steel and tanks and omits such petiness as willingness use the available power without bothering with inpractical pseudo-ideals. Pavel Vozenilek 03:15, 19 November 2006 (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.