Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzbekistani Russian

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 delete. Sandstein 19:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistani Russian

Uzbekistani Russian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsalvageable original research Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it’s not a great article but it isn’t OR as a source is provided. Whether it’s notable or not I’m less sure. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not reliable and does not mention the subject of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the source is about borrowed words between Uzbek and Russian, not about a Russian dialect. SpinningSpark 22:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is terrible, needs total rewriting, but the subject definitely is notable. I will work on adding sources to the article. There are many examples of WP pages for "pidgin" languages or dialectical variances, so I think this article just needs some major rework. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that we need academic sources stating that the subject of the article exists. I doubt there are any, and I am pretty sure the subject of the article does not exist, but if you can find them, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed, added one significant academic source from Goethe-Institut. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I am not at all convinced. First, the source is an opinion piece of somebody who does not have any academic credibility. Second, and more importantly, it does not claim an existence of a separate Uzbekistani Russian dislect. It says Russian in Uzbekistan use some words which describe local reality (such as aryk) which may be less clear if used in Russia. This does not make it a dialect, and in fact I know all of these words even though I have no relation to Uzbekistan.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The three recently added sources are really groping at straws now. Besides being poor quality sources, they do nothing more than verify that Russian is spoken in Uzbekistan. The word dialect is not even mentioned in any of them. At the moment, there is a complete failure to even verify existence, let alone anything else. SpinningSpark 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does no justice to what they’re trying to prove. This doesn’t even scratch the dimension of what a language article is supposed to be. Trillfendi (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This is obviously the correct solution: redirect to Russian dialects and incorporate any sourced material there. Very simple. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We must first accept that Uzbekistani Russian is a thing before we should do that. There is, so far, no convincing sourced material to incorporate. SpinningSpark 20:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per SpinningSpark. With no proof that this dialect even exists, this article seems like a WP:HOAX. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2019 (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.