Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dessiatina

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, with no prejudice about merging or redirecting (that'sa talk page issue, as Phil Bridger suggests). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dessiatina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Obsolete Russian units of measurement, although that article perhaps should move to a less POV title such as traditional Russian units of measurement; the only reason why any of these traditional measures are obsolete is because of the bureaucratic imposition of high modernism under Soviet communism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's no reason why this subject should be considered any less encyclopedic that hectare or acre. The reason why it became obsolete is encyclopedic information that can go into the article. Merging/redirection can be considered by discussion on the talk page - deletion would prevent that. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep hmm, assuming that the author isn't making words up (as there isn't an ounce of verifiability in the article) the subject is keepable but still needs MASSIVE wikification.--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 20:09, 26 February 2008 (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.