- 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Leaning Tower of Nevyansk
- Leaning Tower of Nevyansk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources in article. Article appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material, so some WP:OR concerns too. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – if not independently notable, a selective merge to Nevyansk would enhance that article. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge I agree that Nevyansk would be a great home for this information that can't stand on its own. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 01:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Firstly, our policies and guidelines do not and have never banned articles because their source material "appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material" or any language's material. The writing of articles that are based primarily on non-English reliable sources is encouraged - See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's hard to imagine such a monument in the United States or United Kingdom even being considered for AfD. Plenty of sources available in Russian or otherwise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Secondly, by the nom's statement "No reliable sources in article" indicates a complete lack of following WP:AFD's WP:BEFORE. It took me seconds to find these sources. As WP:AFD states, if "adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The thing is that with no english sources - the ones you linked to also appear to be all Russian sources, inclusion of them involves a certain level of WP:OR that being said, I'd agree with the prior two suggestions to merge with Nevyansk. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- You can make your case on the WP:BIAS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias talk pages that non-English sources should not adequate to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia because you believe "OR" is involved.-- Oakshade ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable 18th century building, which would be obviously notable whichever country it was situated in. Once again, we have editors who don't understand what OR is (a tiresomely increasing problem). Translations of foreign material do not fall into this category. Please actually bother to read WP:OR (or even the "this page in a nutshell" section) before you cite it. It really doesn't say what you think it does. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously, due to extremely unusual nature and history of building from what I read in the article which makes it clearly noteworthy, so I would completely expect there would be sourcing about it. Further I assume good faith that the Russian language sources do serve as editor Oakshade asserts they do, just like we AGF about off-line sources. AGF rather than OR is the relevant assumption. Scant risk that this is a hoax which experienced editor Oakshade is pulling on us. :) -- do ncr am 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. While this article could use some de-mystification, I see nothing concerning about notability. Why this was brought up is the greater mystery.-- Auric talk 18:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Any building of this age is notable IMHO. RobBertholf ( talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 16:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Leaning Tower of Nevyansk
- Leaning Tower of Nevyansk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources in article. Article appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material, so some WP:OR concerns too. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment – if not independently notable, a selective merge to Nevyansk would enhance that article. NORTH AMERICA 1000 21:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge I agree that Nevyansk would be a great home for this information that can't stand on its own. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 01:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Firstly, our policies and guidelines do not and have never banned articles because their source material "appears to be primarily a translation of Russian material" or any language's material. The writing of articles that are based primarily on non-English reliable sources is encouraged - See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It's hard to imagine such a monument in the United States or United Kingdom even being considered for AfD. Plenty of sources available in Russian or otherwise. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Secondly, by the nom's statement "No reliable sources in article" indicates a complete lack of following WP:AFD's WP:BEFORE. It took me seconds to find these sources. As WP:AFD states, if "adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The thing is that with no english sources - the ones you linked to also appear to be all Russian sources, inclusion of them involves a certain level of WP:OR that being said, I'd agree with the prior two suggestions to merge with Nevyansk. Simonm223 ( talk) 23:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- You can make your case on the WP:BIAS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias talk pages that non-English sources should not adequate to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia because you believe "OR" is involved.-- Oakshade ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable 18th century building, which would be obviously notable whichever country it was situated in. Once again, we have editors who don't understand what OR is (a tiresomely increasing problem). Translations of foreign material do not fall into this category. Please actually bother to read WP:OR (or even the "this page in a nutshell" section) before you cite it. It really doesn't say what you think it does. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously, due to extremely unusual nature and history of building from what I read in the article which makes it clearly noteworthy, so I would completely expect there would be sourcing about it. Further I assume good faith that the Russian language sources do serve as editor Oakshade asserts they do, just like we AGF about off-line sources. AGF rather than OR is the relevant assumption. Scant risk that this is a hoax which experienced editor Oakshade is pulling on us. :) -- do ncr am 12:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. While this article could use some de-mystification, I see nothing concerning about notability. Why this was brought up is the greater mystery.-- Auric talk 18:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Any building of this age is notable IMHO. RobBertholf ( talk) 16:07, 3 April 2015 (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.