Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppressed research in the Soviet Union


 * 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 Speedy keep. Article was improved through normal editing. vvvt 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Looks like WP:SYN for me: it advocates the idea that "research in the Soviet Union in science and humanities was placed from the very beginning under a strict ideological scrutiny" and introduces neologism "Black Book of Soviet science", while not quoting any sources for those facts. Lead and policy sections lack any sources. vvvt 09:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead may lack sources, and, arguably, ought to. Since there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't discussed (and properly cited) in the main body of the article, it is normally okay to leave the citations in the main body and have none at all in the lead.  See WP:LEADCITE. However, the policy section ought to be cited, and may be cut if this is not done. The criticism that it's a WP:SYN may be valid; I can't read the Russian language sources and I don't trust automatic translators, so I can't check.  Therefore this is a remark rather than a !vote and should not be read as a !vote of any kind. Certainly the title of this article is inherently POV and if kept, this material must be renamed.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The nominator is obviously unfamiliar with the basic facts about Soviet science. Yes, indeed science was strictly controlled by the Communist party and KGB, and ideological dogmas were imposed. Several branches of science were outlawed, and their followers were prosecuted. These are well known basic facts. Some references can be added of course, but the article already has a pretty good list of references. It should be also mentioned that the nomination for deletion was prompted by similar activities in ruwiki. They are trying to delete this article in ruwiki as "an attempt to smear the motherland by emigrants from Russia". It should be also mentioned that current Russian president signed a decree against falsifications of Russian history. In other words, only pro-government historical research is supported. SA ru (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (the vote stated clearly upon request). The article does not violate WP:SYN because it does not really have a political agenda, but rather simply describes a specific topic: Suppressed research in the Soviet Union. This is not a fork to "Research in the Soviet Union" because it describes a separate entity. It does not push an extreme point of view ("some research was suppressed in the Soviet Union, and that was very bad" vs "some research was suppressed in the Soviet Union, and that was very good"). The topic is quite notable, and there is a vast literature on that topic. Whether or not this article describes the USSR positively or negatively is also not an issue here. (Unfortunately this article most likely will be deleted in ruwiki because some administrators believe that it is unpatriotic). So, keep and expand. SA ru (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is OK. Furthermore this article was nominated under the pressure back from Russian Wikipedia concerning the fact that the English article is present. Therefore keep. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 14:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The drawbacks mentioned in the nomination are fixable by regular editing. A number of general-purpose unreferenced phrases may be safely deleted without particular harm, an I will do this. Individual "per-science" sections is the main set of encyclopedic facts; philosophical/political opinions and generalizations about how and why it happened are important, but they are opinions of researches, and I agree that they must be properly attributed. The subject itself is a well-defined sub-topic, peculiar to the USSR, of a potentially huge topic Science and technology in the Soviet Union, with plenty of references, so it is naturally splittable per wikipedia customs of arranging material. - Altenmann >t 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced and verifiable topic. Dew Kane (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2010 (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.