Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:17, 24 August 2011 editVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits Party lines again?← Previous edit Revision as of 13:28, 24 August 2011 edit undoVecrumba (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,811 edits Strong keep, more "Soviets did not occupy Latvia" content deletionismNext edit →
Line 12: Line 12:
:'''Comment''' Just wanted to make the comment as well, that I placed the issue tags on the article, and also placed info on the talk page. It was after doing this, that I searched for sources which would give it encyclopaedic notability (rather than ]) and failed to find anything of substance that would have stopped me from putting this up at AfD. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC) :'''Comment''' Just wanted to make the comment as well, that I placed the issue tags on the article, and also placed info on the talk page. It was after doing this, that I searched for sources which would give it encyclopaedic notability (rather than ]) and failed to find anything of substance that would have stopped me from putting this up at AfD. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I would put more stock in deletion requests if they were not initiated by editors with a history of appearing to be antagonistic to Baltic topics. I would troll WP to delete articles which are only dear to Russophiles, but I can't be that petty. (These are my perceptions only, I am sure the nomination was done in good faith, but as we know, appearances count.) I'll see what I can turn up in the press, this will be around for debate for a few days at least. ]<small> ►]</small> 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC) :'''Comment''' I would put more stock in deletion requests if they were not initiated by editors with a history of appearing to be antagonistic to Baltic topics. I would troll WP to delete articles which are only dear to Russophiles, but I can't be that petty. (These are my perceptions only, I am sure the nomination was done in good faith, but as we know, appearances count.) I'll see what I can turn up in the press, this will be around for debate for a few days at least. ]<small> ►]</small> 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
* '''Strong Keep''' Apparently (it only took one Google search) there was widespread coverage of the U.S. resolution in the Latvian press (I'd have to reach out to other editors for the press in the other Baltic states), for example: "Kongress lūdz ASV prezidentu un valsts sekretāri aicināt Krievijas Federācijas valdību atzīt, ka padomju okupācija Latvijā, Igaunijā un Lietuvā saskaņā ar Molotova-Ribentropa paktu turpmāko 51 gadu bija nelikumīga,” teikts apstiprinātajā dokumentā.", that is (reverse translating), "the Congress requests that the President of the U.S. Secretary of State invite the leadership of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and during the subsequent 51 years was illegal." Rather makes this look more like an attempt to delete content on Misplaced Pages which relates to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states and the Russian Federation continuing to maintain otherwise. ]<small> ►]</small> 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:28, 24 August 2011

United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic

United States resolution on the 90th anniversary of the Latvian Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article covers something thast simply is not notable. It suffers from quite a few issues, but first and foremost, there is next to no scholarly discourse on the actual subject, apart from the standard brief news reporting. The actual resolution may warrant at most a line in Occupation of the Baltic States, but as a stand alone article, within an encyclopaedic setting the notability just isn't there, demonstrated by the lack of sourcing to independent, reliable sources. Russavia 21:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages is not here to repeat the text of every resolution of every legislature in the world. Unless there is substantial third party coverage of the resolution, it fails WP:NOTABILITY. TFD (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just wanted to make the comment as well, that I placed the issue tags on the article, and also placed info on the talk page. It was after doing this, that I searched for sources which would give it encyclopaedic notability (rather than WP:NOTNEWS) and failed to find anything of substance that would have stopped me from putting this up at AfD. --Russavia 22:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment I would put more stock in deletion requests if they were not initiated by editors with a history of appearing to be antagonistic to Baltic topics. I would troll WP to delete articles which are only dear to Russophiles, but I can't be that petty. (These are my perceptions only, I am sure the nomination was done in good faith, but as we know, appearances count.) I'll see what I can turn up in the press, this will be around for debate for a few days at least. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Apparently (it only took one Google search) there was widespread coverage of the U.S. resolution in the Latvian press (I'd have to reach out to other editors for the press in the other Baltic states), for example: "Kongress lūdz ASV prezidentu un valsts sekretāri aicināt Krievijas Federācijas valdību atzīt, ka padomju okupācija Latvijā, Igaunijā un Lietuvā saskaņā ar Molotova-Ribentropa paktu turpmāko 51 gadu bija nelikumīga,” teikts apstiprinātajā dokumentā.", that is (reverse translating), "the Congress requests that the President of the U.S. Secretary of State invite the leadership of the Russian Federation to acknowledge that the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and during the subsequent 51 years was illegal." Rather makes this look more like an attempt to delete content on Misplaced Pages which relates to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states and the Russian Federation continuing to maintain otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Categories: