Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture (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. Valley2 city ‽ 04:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet war in Afghanistan in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was nominated two years ago. Barely crawled by. No improvement since. Just, as nominator stated before a dumping-ground for trivia, mostly in the form of a list. Provides nothing of value to the project. Bull dog 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are numerous sources that could be used to improve this article beyond its current state, including books on Soviet-era Russian literature, for which the Afghanistan war was an important backdrop (e.g. Brown The last years of Soviet Russian literature Cambridge University Press 1993), and commentaries on Western portrayals of the war (e.g. Black The Politics of James Bond Praeger 2000),, etc. Sources aren't hard to find for this one. JulesH (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-referenced, even if it does have a lot of trivia. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So I can make an article about anything but it's okay as long as it's "well-referenced?" Bull dog 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it also notable. References can prove notability. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But why is it notable if a video-game references the War in Afghanistan? Bull dog 19:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: gotta say I was torn on this before reading the ref'ed sources available online. Listing movies and video games does not lend notability to this topic: it lends notability to the Soviet - Afghan War itself.  What does lend notability to this article are third party sources discussing the discussion itself of the war.  Finn (10-20-2005), Kazemek (1996), and most especially Shulman (2007 taken on faith as it is not online) do demonstrate notability quite easily.  I am also assuming, given the small industry discussing the "legacy" of the US-Vietnam war to Americans, that Russian language sources could easily render this topic the focus of a FA article.  The lists would be fine on an article of such a scale.  They look a bit much here, but they remain annexes to a notable and referenced topic, and so are fine.  T L Miles (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to nom: your nifty sig does not include the most important part of a sig: an internal link to User:Bulldog123. Might want to look at that.  T L Miles (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Imperfect article, there is no deadline; scholarly subject, passes WP:N.  Provides nothing of value to the nominator, perhaps, but "value to the project" only requires that somebody has to find it of value -- as I do.--Father Goose (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Trim to the opening paragraph, the only part that makes a pretense at being an encyclopedia article. WillOakland (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if it passed 2 years ago, why delete now? if the article reflects the thesis of verifiable sources, isn't it notable? pohick (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an abundance of notable works centered in or referring to this in a major way, and the article seems reasonably sound. The consensus is now even stronger than it was that such articles are appropriate, but I guess it was desired to test that. Nothing wrong with trying. DGG (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2009 (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.