Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozero

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Consensus is that verifiability issues, if anything, are passed. Patstuarttalk|edits 21:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ozero

Ozero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

del about dachas of Russian politicians and tycoons. 100% based on russian shit-digging newspapers, hence way beyond WP:Verifiability threshold. `'mikka 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • weak keep well I can certainly buy off a little on the verification by shit-digging news site issue. However, I can vote to keep for right now. I would think a vacation community populated by the powers that be is reasonably notable. Imagine a condo community owned and populated by GW Bush, Bill Gates, Bob Dole and Michael Jordan. Montco 02:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete because I can't find neutral sources about this and Mikka knows of what he speaks in matters of Russian press coverage. Guy (Help!) 13:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are Novaya Gazeta and Lenta.ru shit-digging? Don't you mix up "non-shit-digging" and "government-controlled"? Colchicum 14:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • i.e. I consider the statement "100% based on russian shit-digging newspapers" biased at best. Novaya Gazeta and Lenta.ru are among the most respected Russian language media, though non-state-owned, yet they take this issue seriously. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colchicum (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
    • Newspapers are sources for news (i.e., events), not for data. There are no references to original sources. But whatever. You like it, you keep it. `'mikka 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Colchicum. Seems to have a lot of sources, and deciding what each newspaper does or does not dig for is beyond my expertise. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable resort referred to by multiple third-party verifiable, reliable sources. --Charlene 00:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. -- Petri Krohn 04:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is quite well-sourced, most sources appear to be newspapers and the like. Opinion of the quality of those newspapers is, well, opinion. Nominator asserts that they are "s***-digging", but provides nothing to back this claim. Seraphimblade 05:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator has some extreme bias issues here. The article is sourced well. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 23:02, 8 January 2007 (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.