Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian propaganda (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Ya  sh  !   19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian propaganda
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An extremely badly written article with poor English and severe WP:POV and WP:RS problems (all the references within the article are Ukrainian websites of dubious credibility). The topic of "Propaganda in Russia" may be notable per se (as is Propaganda in the United States or Propaganda in the Soviet Union), but I believe this article is a case of WP:BLOWITUP. --Buzz105 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is certainly notable -- see Putin's Propaganda Machine: Soft Power and Russian Foreign Policy or Russian propaganda over Crimea and the Ukraine: how does it work?, for example. WP:BLOWITUP is not policy; not even close.  Our actual policy is to preserve and improve such content. Andrew D. (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I believe the topic is notable, although the content in its current form definitely could be improved particularly in relation to neutral point of view and sourcing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Beyond BLOWITUP not even being policy, it's not a rationale of which I personally believe makes any sense -- deleting an article and then re-doing it is a very superficial action. We could be improving it, right here, right now, but instead one has to take it to AfD and make things a distraction. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 07:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I cleaned up the article a bit; a lot of the sourcing was OR or SYNTH. I would support the move of this article to Propaganda in Russia, as "Russian propaganda" brings up a lot of Cold-war era sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is a notable subject; however, it does need work as pointed out above and agree it should be moved "Propaganda in Russia". Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2016 (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.