Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian National Association


 * 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   merge to Russians in Sweden. A short discussion, but all three participants have essentially agreed to this merge. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Russian National Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the guidelines for notability of organisations. It has one reliable source mentioning one event, a show about Russian brides in Sweden. Otherwise, only non-reliable sources are cited: The organization (which is reliable about itself, but which does not establish notability), and some miscellaneous mentions in non-reliable sources. It was named when its chairperson was invited to contribute to a reliable-source (Swedish Radio)'s discussion of Putin's election and allegations of electoral fraud, but such a trivial mention does not establish notability. (This article was listed in the See also section of Donbass Association Malmö, which is also under discussion for deletion.) is a 18:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Updated with strike-throughs. is a 19:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The cited sources in Voice of Russia, state radio, and state tv + this article about them and their exhibition in Dala-Demokraten + this article in The Local + this mention in Dagens Nyheter + this additional mention in Voice of Russia + this mention in Svenska Dagbladet, this article in Dagbladet (sv)... I could probably find more if I looked harder. I find that "an organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is fulfilled. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dala Demokraten link covers the Russian Bride program, one event that does not establish the notability of an organization; it ends with boilerplate text that likely is copied directly from a news release; it is a minor newspaper. In English, The Local's long article discusses Russians in Sweden and Swedish views of Russia; again the head of the association is quoted for her views, not speaking on behalf of the organization. As I wrote above, it is an organization with one notable event (Russian bride); its head is sometimes asked for comments about being Russian in Sweden. With the exception of The Russsian Bride, any activities of the organization are ignored. Please give one reliable source discussing an organizational activity besides The Russian Bride. is a 19:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not going to put such effort into this. I have a lot of other things to do. Just get it all over with. Stamboliyski (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge and redirect to Russians in Sweden. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggested merger is a very good suggestion. The leader is usually asked to comment about the experiences of Russians in Sweden, rather than on any activity of the organization (apart from the Russian Brides showings). If reliable sources cover other activities and an editor writes more, a self-standing article might be viable in the future. is a 08:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. Stamboliyski (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read the discussion. The discussants agreed on a merger. is a 00:17, 23 January 2015 (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.