Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)

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. Missvain (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation of Novorossiysk (1920)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing this for IP per comment on talk page: "Nothing in this article is cited. The only links are to a random blog on Wordpress. This article needs be seriously improved, or it needs to be deleted." I have no observation on the merits of the nomination other than that another note on the talk page claims it is a translation of an article from the Russian WP. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is indeed a translation of the ru.wiki article which cites a number of sources. Unfortunately the creating editor didn’t bother to translate them too, but they’re there. People more familiar with the topic may want to argue that the sources are unreliable, but there’s no doubt that they’re there. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article creator has messages stretching back for years on their talk page asking them to source their articles properly, and they’re a New Page Patroller. Ho hum Mccapra (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Mccapra on this. In the Russian article the "Примечания" (Notes) section is what we would call References and "Источники" is Further reading (or maybe general sources). However, as I am utterly flummoxed with Russian I don't really feel I can add these in. I have also found this and this. The topic is unquestionably notable and, dare I say it, important. The question for me is do we wait for it to be improved or would it be better to delete it and hope to goad someone into writing it properly. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it is in real need of someone adding valid sources form the Russian version and those mentioned above. KylieTastic (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clearly notable event which any decent encyclopaedia should cover. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An event with significant coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KylieTastic, definitely needs to use Russian sources. BlueD954 (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.