Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the Fall of the Russian Empire


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 03:54Z 

Timeline of the Fall of the Russian Empire

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary and POV fork of the Timeline of Russian history `'mikka 22:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 01:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV fork of the Timeline of Russian history.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Keep, changing title to Timeline of the Russian Revolution and trimming content
 * per discussion below I'm sorry for being so dense. I'm usually better than this, honest.  I was sloppy in my original reading of the nom and didn't understand the argument without a bit of clarification from the nominator.  Now that I understand better, I'm changing my vote.
 * Delete because the entire timeline is in Timeline of Russian history and this is an unnecessary repetition (and arguably POV fork) of part of that timeline. As pointed out below by Mikka, it is hard to maintain multiple timelines without a good reason.  Subsets of the big timeline can and are repeated in articles that deal with periods of Russian history such as Russian Revolution of 1917.  This timeline does not seem to have a good reason for existence so delete it. --Richard 21:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question to nominator - What makes this a POV fork instead of a legitimate subsidiary article to Timeline of Russian history? Seems to me that it would make sense to have a more detailed timeline of a pivotal event such as the Fall of the Russian Empire.  --Richard 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case you don't know the history, the Fall cannot possibly last from 1825 to 1924. At best it was from 1905 to 1917. But for this time frame in would be something like Timeline of Russian Revolutions: a non-poetic (i.e. neutral) and meaningful title. `'mikka 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I admit I hadn't looked closely at the table.  Yes, I agree that it's a little weird to argue that the "Fall of the Russian Empire" began in 1825 although one can see the seeds of change and revolution back that far.
 * However, I don't see how this is a POV fork. To be a POV fork, there would have to be a POV being pushed by the separate article.  As you say, a more appropriate title and content would be Timeline of the Russian Revolution which redirects to this article.  My suggestion would be to trim the content to 1905-1918 (or 1905-1924), delete Timeline of the Russian Revolution and then move this article to Timeline of the Russian Revolution.  I have changed my vote above accordingly.
 * --Richard 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a POV fork exactly for the reason mentioned: why would fall start in 1825 or at any other days. As for "seeds", with some resourcefullness they may be traced to Rurick times. Fruthermore, it is a fork, because (a) Russian Revolution of 1917 already has its chronology and (b) wikipedia already has its established periodization of Russian history based on tangible milestones, see History of Russia. A minor stroke, it is "Russian Revolutions",  not "Russian Revolution". Finally, this extensively commented "timeline" is in fact an alternative version of Russian history, with some dubious and outright false statements (starting from the very top: "decembrist revolt... against Imperial Russia"), i.e., a clean-cut fork: one may take, say Russian history, 1892-1917, convert it into a tabulated format, ordered by dates and events, and  you will get something like the discussed one, and not really much larger, by the way.
 * Concluding: this article is a fork, with all problems known for content forkings: verifiablity, maintainability, unnecessary duplication. `'mikka 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * OK, I'm willing to believe that this article "might" be a POV fork. Let's leave out the question of starting in 1825 vs. 1905.  Please provide some examples that show that this is an alternative version of Russian history.  Without evidence to show this, then it is not obvious that this is a POV fork.  For example, what is it about the "Decembrist revolt" entry that is a POV fork?
 * I dont' want to be dragged into the waste of time related to the discussion of the actual content: this is exactly the 'harm of forks: one has to waste time to keep things in sync. Out of personal courtesy, I will answer this one, but refuse to discuss other problems. "Decembrists" did not revolt against "Imperial Russia"; in fact they pledged their allegiance to Constantine of Russia. `'mikka 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Leaving out the specific content of the table for a moment, I think it is better to have a Timeline of the Russian Revolutions article than to have the timeline be in the Russian Revolution of 1917 since it seems reasonable to have a timeline that extedns from 1905 to at least 1918 or 1924.
 * My recommendation remains as stated above with the proviso that any content that appears to be POV fork in nature should be reconciled with the other articles. --Richard 22:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, respectfully disagree. A timeline is a timeline is a timeline. The discussed article, rich in text, is a tabulated version of a segment of the Russian history with a pretentious title. Of course "Fall of the Russian Empire" is a valid topic and a summary article which discusses opinions of experts what went wrong in Russia makes sense, but I am against splitting the Timeline of Russian history by "rises and falls". By the way, do we have any other "Fall" timeline in wikipedia? Look into Timeline of British history or into any from Category:Nation_timelines. I understand, it makes sense to have, e.g., the Timeline of microscope technology, which may be safely considered isolated from what else happens in the world. But a history of a country is one continuous flow and any "rises and falls" are necessarily post-factum POV. E.g., in opinions of many, the period of 1907-1913 is hardly a fall (sorry, no details), and no big wonder it is conveniently omitted from the discussed article. `'mikka 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I believe I covered all aspects of my position in quite a detail, and I am retiring from this discussion. I will not cry into a pillow if the majority will disagree with me here. Tschuss, `'mikka 22:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary fork of the Timeline of Russian History.  Kingfish 19:10, 8 February 2007 (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.