Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian youth


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Slim participation, but the author appears to agree so not calling this Soft Star   Mississippi  11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Russian youth

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

The entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on.  Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.
 * My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.
 * Please take a look at Articles for deletion for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Articles for deletion for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at Articles for deletion for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2024 (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.