Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevodnya (1906)


 * 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 no consensus. Article could be re-nominated. (non-admin closure)  J 947  04:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Sevodnya (1906)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No statement of notability, could not even find sources in Russian language through the help of Google Translate. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, a daily newspaper published in the national capital. The newspaper is mentioned in several works from Lenin and Stalin, see for example . We find references to the newspaper https://books.google.com/books?id=wdneenPO-uEC&pg=PA187, https://books.google.com/books?id=06JtAAAAMAAJ , https://books.google.com/books?id=KsuHAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA168 , http://tolstoy-lit.ru/tolstoy/bio/makovickij-yasnopolyanskie-zapiski/periodicheskaya-pechat.htm , http://teatr-lib.ru/Library/Petrovskaya/Putevoditel/ , http://az.lib.ru/w/wejnberg_a_a/text_0010.shtml , http://elbib.nbchr.ru/lib_files/0/kkni_0_0001001.pdf , http://ptj.spb.ru/archive/37/historical-novel-37/mejerxold-i-komissarzhevskaya-modern/ , http://magazines.russ.ru/voplit/2005/5/bogo22.html , etc.. I think some understanding that we cannot expect the same online coverage from a 1906 publication as a 2006 one needs to be taken into consideration. --Soman (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's that newspaper that published for only three years is unlikely to be covered in ways to satisfy Wikipedia notability and expand beyond a stub. That the article contains a single line copied from a footnote in it's single source suggests there's not much available on the subject. I tried looking at the sources above but either couldn't locate anything significant or couldn't locate anything at all about the subject. Sometimes I didn't have access to all the content. Do any of them contain significant coverage?  Are they all quotes from articles that appeared in this newspaper? Gab4gab (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ::Delete, unless information can be supplied to demonstrate that the paper was somehow notable other than being published in the capitol.RudyLucius (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2017 (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.