Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Russia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Russia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Russia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Russia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Russia related AfDs


Russia

[edit]

Mikail Akhmedov

[edit]
Mikail Akhmedov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His only claim to notability is playing less than one minute in a cup game. Aside from that, I found Chechnya Today, which mentions him running a training session for kids at a local school, which, on its own, is not enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which require significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Sesyavin

[edit]
Dmitri Sesyavin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sesyavin only ever played 13 mins in a cup match for Rotor's senior team, which is not a particularly strong claim to notability. I found Rambler, which mentions him once in the match report and once in the squad list, and Sport 34, which only mentions him three times in the match report itself. This is far from enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Shcherbin

[edit]
Yaroslav Shcherbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was presumed notable for 28 mins in a cup match. Shcherbin has played in the lower levels since and there is no sign of passing WP:SPORTBASIC. I found Infokam, which mentions him scoring a hat-trick in the Volgograd Region Championship, which I can only imagine is a very low level in the Russian football league structure. This is far from enough to pass our guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Pavel Durov

[edit]
Arrest of Pavel Durov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a recentist fork of material that really belongs in the main Pavel Durov article, which is easily short enough to be able to accommodate it. This article should be deleted, and the content merged to Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The article creator's edit summary for the creation includes the line " I created the article because I think its relevance as a billionaire behind a free-speech associated messaging platform will lead to long discussions and many details about the nature of the crimes and reactions from libertarians and debates and potential protests against the arrest." This looks like an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely familiar with GNG. I think it was WP:TOOSOON for this WP:FORK of the main article. On the other hand, I don't think you should be invoking WP:SNOW any time soon - look at the number of Merge !votes this attracted in its first 12 hours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was merged (and I think this event is probably too big now - and developing exponentially - for that), this redirect will be kept, and hence the SNOW. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not developing exponentially. It's growing approximately linearly, mostly by having tenuously related material and the opinions of Russian government proxies added to it. There doesn't seem to be any more news about the case itself for the time being; we probably won't get that unless either the French government charges him, or the Russian government formally requests his release. As it is, we've got a very one-sided article that is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS (as well as all the other issues noted above). GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of how quickly this event is developing, but regarding your second point about the article quality, remember WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning newspaper. We're not here for what could happen, we're here for what has happened, and at the moment that's not enough to merit a separate article. If it's important for the world to read about Durov's arrest, how does putting that information in his main biography stop the world from reading it? (And I really don't think you mean 'neuralgic'.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is my discussion given. 181.39.69.107 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very high-profile case involving multiple countries and one of the most used apps in the world. If he's suddenly released without charge we can always reconsider. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Precedent shows that it is difficult to sustain articles where the arrest itself does not bear any meaningful significance; compare this article to Arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried, not Arrest of Imran Khan. The argument could be made that Russia's response heightens this article's notability—though it is expected of Russia to leverage the situation—but as it stands, there is not enough information to sustain an article without adding unnecessary information such as Russia blocking Telegram in 2018. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it notable that a large proportion of the current article is responses from within Russia, especially (though not only) from people who are either associated with the Russian government, or not notable. Who on earth is 'colonelcassad', who seems to think George Orwell was pro-censorship, for example? While you could totally merge the whole current article into Durov's main article, I think that in practice some judicious editing would be better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - WP:TOOSOON to have separate article. If it becomes significant, it can be split. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Take out the background and reactions, and you have a simple "person was arrested without incident" paragraph that should be covered in the bio article. The reaction section is very puffery at this point and does not show that this will have any significant long term effects. Now, if this leads to him ultimately being convicted in a well-covered trial, then we can talk about a separate article, but a simple arrest is not something that needs a separate article at this time. To also add, there is no evidence there is enduring coverage of this, which means it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for notability. Just being covered by the news is not a reason to create an article since WP is not a newspaper.Masem (t) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pavel Durov. This event is a news story with only news sources, and it is certainly in no way independently notable of the man himself. Zero reason for this to have its own article at this time. If you believe that this could be notable in the future and we need to wait for more info, that's further evidence it shouldn't be an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge GNG isn't the issue here, it is whether this merits a stand alone article right now. Given the lack of secondary sources I cannot see how this merits a stand alone article given articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not similar to that at all. For a start, Crowdstrike is not made by Microsoft, and is a clearly distinct topic from Windows, so such a merger would be obviously inappropriate. For another thing, the Crowdstrike outage grounded entire airlines and caused global disruption. So far, this arrest is inconveniencing exactly one billionaire. I still don't see how this fork is justified - this information would be better merged into the main Pavel Durov article, except for the increasingly irrelevant laundry list of reactions, which should largely be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable self-sufficient exessevely sourced subject. The text is already looking larger than original Pavel Durov article text. --ssr (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because people keep adding useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff to the article. This is the "cheap" way to make any topic seem important, to catalog every possible reaction mentioned out there, but that's not encyclopedic, we should be documenting long-term aspects and any actual action-driven responses that would have an impact. — Masem (t) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      News-like activity on Wikipedia should be handled by Wikinews, as the rule WP:NOTNEWS literally and correctly concludes. After that, the notable output should be absorbed in Wikipedia with Wikinews keeping archives of the news processed. And that is the clear rule: WP:NOTNEWS. Why it is not obeyed? As long as it is not, the limitless "deletion nominations of news events" with, as you said is the true "useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff". The community, or the WMF just have to make the rules obeyed correctly. Their own rules. BTW, the article will be kept. "Useless" were (will be) all efforts to delete it, starting with this nomination and votes "delete" and "merge". Just useless. --ssr (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is involving one of the most used messaging apps, and deserves it's own page. The page is well sourced, and it seems early to delete this article, as the story is still evolving. OnlyNanotalk 13:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's too early to have this page, as the story is still evolving. The alternative is that every single time a news story breaks anywhere, we create an article as though it's going to be the next big thing, and then go back and delete the ones that turn out not to be. That's ridiculous. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yes, there are many sources covering this, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. If it turns out that this has a significant lasting impact, then we can create a separate article, but it is too soon to determine this. As for the size of the article, much of the background section would be covered in Durov's page, while most of the reactions section can simply be deleted. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The event is recent but has received broad coverage in reliable sources (notability criteria). Its verifiable with reliable references. Generally adheres to NPOV. No Original Research. Adheres to BLP guidelines. I would argue that the article is too small, as it could benefit from additional context, especially regarding the legal implications and historical precedents for such an arrest, but the quality is currently more than acceptable relatively speaking. As time passes it should be evaluated for recentism, ensuring that it maintains relevance over time, but in its current state, there seem to be many large institutions and people that believe this to be a significant event. With regards to Merge: The broadness of topics included (social media, moderation, regulation, free speech) and the already extensive coverage would be an indication of this being suitable as its own article, and something broader than what is suitable on the bio of one man. The fact that there is some fluff only necessitates the pruning and improvement of the article. 148.252.104.241 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pavel Durov. This is a fork of Pavel Durov, and the question is not whether there is notability for the information. The question is whether this is a bad fork. Is it a POVFORK? Perhaps, if we say the coverage of this one event of this notable individual has become skewed out of proportion with the subject's importance. Even if not a POVFORK, it is a redundant fork, because this can and should be contained in a section about Durov. There are no strong reasons for an article split. The parent article is not too long, and this would be a strange split in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The incident should have an article on their own. It's unnecessary to merge back into one article because it would be difficult to navigate. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth does WP:TOOSOON support keeping this article, which was definitely created too soon? And it's our duty as editors to make the articles easy to navigate; we could improve this content by cutting out most of the increasingly irrelevant 'reactions'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also frustrating that my !vote directly above this one points out that SIGCOV is simply not the correct consideration here. This is a content fork. Also what secondary sources do we even have about this arrest? It all looks like news reporting to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the “Background” and “Arrest” sections are already way too long to be properly merged into the main article, and they contain very relevant information about the whole story. Without those details, I’d struggle to understand why he was arrested in first place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we copied those in without change, those sections contain under 900 words. The subject's page is currently under 1800 words. The combined article would still be at the very short end of WP:SIZERULE. No split is justified on size. And bear in mind that as much of that information is already on the parent page, we don't need to copy it in, even assuming it is all even due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Yes, the event is wholly notable, "it's important", or whatever, but this is regardless an unnecessary fork of the article on the human being; even if we were to merge every word of the arrest article into the main article, we would be well away from having any size concerns, and I do not expect such extensive merging to be necessary; around half of this arrest article covers reactions that could be trimmed to two sentences; the same goes for the "background". If anything, it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article, not to delete one; Wikipedia policy is not to "create an article on everything that gets a mention in the news" and then see if an article is really necessary, but the other way around. I don't see any further developments happening very rapidly; he was arrested, some people said "this is a bad thing", and that's about it for now. If somehow Telegram were to shut down following Durov's arrest, I would support a "2024 Telegram shutdown" article with section on Durov's arrest, but for now we do not need an article on an inconsequential arrest. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the standard procedure is to put it as an addition to the person's article and if it turns out that there is a reason it can become a separate article. Pallikari (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to save server space. Nashhinton (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Laos, Moscow

[edit]
Embassy of Laos, Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero secondary sources. No indication whatsoever of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD featured multiple false claims that "all embassies are inherently notable". AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important for Laos - Russia relationship Cantab12 (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "important" is not a criteria for notability. LibStar (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pere Joan Tomas Sogero

[edit]
Pere Joan Tomas Sogero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former ambassador, who has apparently been deceased for several years, which describes him as the "current Andorran ambassador to the Russian Federation" despite him having left the role in 2010. Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luís Pérez Alvarado

[edit]
Jorge Luís Pérez Alvarado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero secondary sources. Single source from the Russian government. Completely fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is with a heavy heart that I propose deletion of this page.

The reason is simple: the scope of this article is untenable. When this page was originally created in 2014, it attempted to provide socio-historical background information for readers of the article 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which covered then ongoing protests in particular regions of that country. It primarily served as a sub-article of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, because that article had got too long. The scope of the article at the time of its creation was a product of that time, and the limited sources that were then available. As the conflict evolved, it became apparent that the article was no longer functioning, leading to a previous deletion discussion in 2022. The result of that discussion was 'keep', despite acknowledgement of concerns about the article's content, including potential WP:OR analysis of primary sources.

All of the existing content has been systematically deleted from the article this year, and the article moved and rescoped. Now, this article purports to provide the historical background to the multi-faceted geopolitical conflict that is the Russo-Ukrainian War, and yet completely fails to do so. In fact, it is unlikely that it will ever be able to do so, because its scope is too broad, with much of the relevant content provided in other articles, such as Russo-Ukrainian War. At present, it seems to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK for miscellaneous history, without any clear narrative or connection to the actual topic it purports to describe: no link is established between the article contents and the war that began in 2014.

Is the whole history of Ukraine within the scope of this article? The whole history of Russia? These could both legitimately claimed to be 'historical background' to the current conflict, and there may be reliable sources that establish such a reality. However, an article with such a scope could never actually function on Wikipedia as anything other than a WP:POVFORK of other better articles on this subject, such as Russia–Ukraine relations. Unfortunately, I think my dear friend Iryna, ever the wisest, has been proven correct by the test of time. She warned me and others that this article would become 'the biggest coatrack Wikipedia has ever seen', and that there was little hope in creating anything of value to the reader with an article scope this broad. Ah, the naivety of youth. If only I had listened...

Fundamentally, the deletion of the existing article content without community consensus is concerning from a procedural point of view. However, I agree in principle that the removed content no longer has an encyclopaedic purpose. For this reason, I suggest this article be deleted. 'Historical background of the Russo-Ukrainian War' may be a notable concept, though I note that no other war covered on Wikipedia has a similar article. I caution, as Iryna did so many years ago, that any such article is liable to become a WP:COATRACK. However, even if such an article is deemed viable for creation, in content, concept and scope, it would still be fundamentally different from the article the existed for ten years from 2014, and therefore I believe 'Blow it up and start over' applies. I propose a clean start. Who is with me? RGloucester — ☎ 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brat Forelli: If the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian relations is to be considered the 'historical background' of the war, how will this article ever serve as anything other than a content fork of Russia–Ukraine relations? RGloucester — ☎ 00:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it serves a different purpose is because the Russian-Ukrainian relations do not provide a complete backgroud into the war, as there is also the Russian domestic developments and its relations with NATO that would be within the scope of this article. Brat Forelli🦊 01:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not provide a complete background into the war. No single article can ever provide a complete historical background of the war, because that would need to include the totality of Russian history, Ukrainian history, Nato history, &c., all of which are already covered in existing articles, which are already linked and described in the 'Background' section of Russo-Ukrainian War. For example, note Russia–NATO relations. Across Wikipedia, no other war has a 'historical background' article. What makes this a special case? What will this article achieve that is not achieved by the existing articles?　RGloucester — ☎ 01:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two books by excellent, academic historians which we can follow when working on the article, see my "Keep" comment above. This war is special because Putin himself goes back all the way to the Middle Ages to justify the war, e.g. Putin's text On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content in the article now, while referenced, does not indicate its connection to the subject it purports to describe, and is, at this time, merely duplication of content existing in other articles like the one you just referenced. 'This war is special', you say, but I can think of many other geopolitical conflicts involving mediaeval historical claims, for example the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the current war in Gaza. And yet, none of these have a 'historical background' article. RGloucester — ☎ 07:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The scope is unclear (should we start from 1169? 1648? 1918? 1991?). The argument that there are books about this topic is untenable. Kapeller's book is about the relationship between the Ukrainians and Russians (Unequal Brothers: Russians and Ukrainians from the Middle Ages to the Present). We can and should use information in these sources to improve existing articles. Alaexis¿question? 09:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We start with Volodymyr / Vladimir the Great, because that's where Putin starts his narrative and where Kappeler and Plokhy (and Snyder and Jobst and possibly more historians) start. Kappeler's preface to the 1st edition mentions Russia's occupation of Crimea in the very first sentence, his preface to the 2nd edition mentions the Russian attack of February 2024 in the very first words. Plokhy's book title is "The Russo-Ukrainian War". Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Iryna's metaphor of a lamb tied to a tree is well said and correct, if kept the article would need a high level of protection in order to avoid vandalism and excessive bias Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the scope of this article is untenable
Why so? We have numerous academic books discussing the article subject in-depth.
Ukraine's Unnamed War - Google Books literally has "Historical background" chapter.
Some are even titled just like that: The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Water Dog

[edit]
Moscow Water Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this 18-year-old article is, in fact, a very long lived hoax. The article itself features no sources that even mention the "Moscow Water Dog". The article for, and every source regarding, the Russian Black Terrier (which this article claims is in part derived from the Moscow Water Dog) do not mention the Water Dog at all. I conducted a review of online sources; the only sources I can find that mention this supposed breed are purely AI-generated slop that has combed from Wikipedia, and a work of fiction that uses this article as inspiration.. There is as far as I can tell absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the MWD or any attempt at breeding it, so I believe the article is an intentional hoax added to Wikipedia when quality control was much lower (2006!) which has somehow survived until now. CoconutOctopus talk 17:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep these sources seem to be enough to support existence and some notability: [1] [2]
I can look further if you want to see if more sources exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do Traumnovelle. Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[3] mentioned here, might just be trivial.
[4] mentioned here, not a notable mention but a good source to show this isn't a hoax and the Kutepov source it mentions might be good coverage of the breed.
[5]
I presume there will be greater coverage in Russian sources too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards (talk · contribs), I see on this page that you speak Russian; might you have time to see if there are usable sources in the Russian article, for a save for our old friend and FA writer, Yomangani? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of proposed and potential sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Others

[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

Draft

[edit]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Russia&oldid=1242354394"