Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Us russian alliance


 * 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. Rje 02:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Us russian alliance

 * I was the author of this article. I will admit that it needs clean up. I will admit that I made typos. Rjensen is correct, I did mean after the revolution. Geogre is also correct in saying that this article may be poorly named and titled. I will abstain from making a vote upon whether it should be kept, I have an obvious bias. But, I would like to say this. Most of references given to refute this article are based upon the interpretations of facts by authors. I have yet to see any factual evidence to refute the article. I'll admit that some statements were said from a point of view that was than neutral, but isn't this what Wikipedia is for? I contribute some, with good intentions, and somebody aids in the repairing of my mistakes, with good intentions. I'll make some changes, obviously I've already found two that should have been done different and BusterD said that he was willing to help. Honestly, I'm a freshly graduated high school student trying to add to a resource I appreciate. Am I looking for sympathy from that to be projected on my article? No. I'm simply saying I have stuff to learn, and the article has things to change. I don't see why it should be deleted instead of repaired without solid evidence that refutes the references that I have given.--67.142.130.29 04:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I yield to wisdom gained through years of experience in what BusterD said, you may choose to let it be deleted. These attacks on either my competence or my intentions are definately not worth this. This article is just not worth the work, nor the defense of it, against such a cynical and over-defensive community. While I will still contribute, I will say this. You know why most of you end up doing most of the work? Because you'd rather have a 'competent' friend create an article than repair an article created by an 'incompetent' new-comer. I advocate for immediate deletion of this article.
 * I believe this article should be repaired, not deleted. While some users may rant wildly, I'm not convinced the original author hasn't something meaningful to bring to the discussion. I'll assist him in correct citation, and if the pedia still thinks it deserves deletion, so be it. BusterD 03:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is full of howlers (opening sentence: "After the American Civil War, Britain was left with an ambition to again unite the colonies and Europe under British rule dubbed 'The United States of Europe'." -- he means after the Revolution and the sentence is wholly false. Scholars since 1919 have known the "alliance" was a myth (see multiple citations on TALK page from English and Russian scholarly journals). Author is unaware of any scholarship but pads the bibliography with rare books and archival sources that it is unlikely he used--thus trying to fake it for unaware readers. There are no redeeming features. Rjensen 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but tag for cleanup (and possibly WP:NPOV). Article has many sources cited; I'd like to see it repaired rather than deleted. If specific objections can be claimed (and cited with verifiable sources), then please do so and work to change/improve the article in a meaningful fashion. Scorpiondollprincess 13:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Scorpiondollprincess Jacks n&#39; Jill 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having read the article, I am inclined to agree with Rjensen.  ''Em-jay-es  15:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article on notable historical alliance. Needing cleanup or NPOV doesn't justify deletion. Rohirok 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: It doesn't justify deletion?  Well, how about the fact that it's "personal pronoun + adjective + noun?"  Us?  We are in alliance?  We are in alliance with "russian" something?  This thing would need to be moved to US/Russian alliance.  Secondly, it would need to be cleaned up.  Third, it would need to be researched.  Fourth, it would need to be cited.  Just how much work are you folks willing to defer to "somebody else, some time, some where" just to avoid the very obvious conclusion that this article does not satisfy any of our criteria.  Finally, did any of you actually look through the Wikipedia to see whether we already discuss this topic?  We do, you know.  Several places.  Several times.  Sheesh!  Geogre 22:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I normally trust AfD voters, but when an AfD is this low in the list and I see habitual "keep everything oh my gosh please don't be mean with just enough work it could one day be great" as the only votes, it's time to act. This is a hoax article, and it is duplicate material. If a real argument for keeping appears by the time the nomination is 48 hr old, I'll stay my hand. Otherwise, I'm just going to delete and close it. If you don't read the article, don't vote on its AfD. Geogre 22:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre... after reading this article, I'm inclined to believe it's a hoax. (For one, can someone please tell me what the memoirs of John Quincy Adams have to do with something that happened during the Civil War when he died in 1848?) I will give it a weak benefit of the doubt and say that those portions which can be sourced can be kept, but if and only if that happens before this AfD closes and it's not duplicated elsewhere on Wikipedia. -- Kinu t /c  02:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Initial reading suggests that this isn't so much an outright hoax as it is some amateur historian's original research (the talk page comment I have as many references supporting the informal alliance as you have refuting them tells me that the author doesn't quite understand the WP:No original research policy. And a long bibliography, while impressive-looking, doesn't mean much unless the references are connected to specific points (how the hell do John Quincy Adams's memoirs connect to a so-called alliance thirteen years after his death?). --Calton | Talk 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as cranky original research or hoaxness. A proper article on the topic would have very different refs and would be better being started from scratch. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of people thought there was an alliance until scholars in 1919 proved otherwise. The article is not based on the scholarship of the last 85 years and can not be considered reliable. Rjensen 12:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and urge editors to consider that the article was written in good-faith ignorance rather than sinister hoaxing. Article is neither neutral not factual.  Karwynn (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're right, Karwynn, it could have been ignorance, and I should not have been so definitive in calling it a hoax.  This topic is a ripe one for hoaxes, however, and I was frustrated by the low-activity AfD listings beyond #50 on a list that can be decided by a single vote.  I thought this was a particularly egregious example of an obvious delete and may have been biting the author when I meant merely to generate some folks to read it skeptically and not have us host more misinformation than we already do.  Geogre 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Understandable, considering the, um, quality of the article :-) Skepticism's no crime.  Karwynn (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2006 (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.