Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamboats on the Volga River


 * 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. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Steamboats on the Volga River

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable topic. Some of the individual events mentioned seem notable enough for an article, but I'm not finding any books or articles specifically about "Steamboats on the Volga River" Mesoderm (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Neuroaesthenic nitwit, that is why spent 2 week writing the article, BECAUSE there is very little information on the topic in English. You do not think 3 major wars, and one major writer on the topic, indicates that there is merit to the subject?

I am lodging a complaint about you for your vandalism and ignorance. Please leave the page alone and revert it to its original state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are certainly sources out there like RM Haywood's The Development of Steamboats on the Volga River and Its Tributaries, 1817-1856. Warden (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest keeping the article and rewriting it using reliable sources. Thanks for finding that. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems like a very good topic, and the article is well-written.  Suggest addition of some sources, I will see if I can find some to start with.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy to allow the author to more time to add sources. Keep. If anyone else adds sources in the meantime, consider this a keep !vote. I should also point out that there is a post on Dispute resolution noticeboard about this article. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to keep as sources have been added. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Volga is a major navigable waterway and the significance of this and similar rivers in Europe for the pattern of economic development in the 19th and 20th centuries is unchallengeable. The nature of inland waterways is that they tend to be served by dedicated vessels and organisationally self-contained which means that general articles are rarely satisfactory. I think it unfortunate, therefore, that this was challenged on notability grounds, not so much because as Colonel Warden points out a book on one small aspect of the topic tops the list in Google books, but because as one of the world's great waterways notability was bound to emerge. After all, there is an article on the Seine steamers, let alone the Mississippi or particualr categories of Great lakes vessels. The real problem is the lack of references, and whilst I have sympathy with Sfsorrow2 on the difficulties in finding good reliable sources in English it is always best to say where information came from. Others can judge whether it is likely to be reliable, and in some cases may be able to improve on it. Clearly some sources do exist on-line, for example this one on the 1950s paddle steamers, and there is some interesting stuff here on the development of the shipping trade on the river, but selecting the best RS is going to take work. Most of it will not be in English. That isn't a reason to delete, and on the contrary the article needs considerable expansion - on the craft themselves, the ports and cargoes served, the organisation and development, and so forth, so I don't see a good case for merging with Volga River. A good way of approaching it is often to work out what to cover and then find the material to support it; the reference to the NY Times story of the 1893 should have been given, but out of context I'm not sure it really belongs in the article at all except to illustrate a point which would need to be backed by other evidence about the scale of the passenger trade, the hazards of navigation, or whatever.  --AJHingston (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I disagree with the keep !vote, but I just thought that I should point out that saying that we have articles on Seine River Steamers and Steamboats of the Mississippi is not a good argument to make as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. These two articles, plus the current article under discussion, were actually all created by the same editor, who left them all unsourced. (The Mississippi article has since been sourced by others.) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some references to the article. In doing so I noticed some close paraphrasing of some internet pages, in particular the 'Cable hauled tugs' section (my notes on talk page). This section needs rewriting or deleting. The whole article could do with a good copyedit by someone who knows the subject. -- Marek  .  69   talk  23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename: to Commercial navigation of the Volga river or similar. This river's usage for commercial navigation is clearly sufficiently prominent to warrant an article, but I don't see its usage by a particular class of vessels warranting separate treatment, lacking considerably more detailed coverage than is currently apparent.
 * Then it can be linked to the Russian article about "Navigation of the Volga river": ru:Судоходство на Волге. But Steamboats on the Volga River is a notable topic too. Keep. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Either that, or merge with the Volga River article, as that one isn't too terribly long. JguyTalkDone 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Article has a lot of potential and is on a notable subject. --Russavia Let's dialogue 04:52, 11 July 2011 (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.