Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvation Union of South Ossetia

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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Union of South Ossetia

)

Unsourced. Not notable. A google search only yields two hits that aren't wiki mirrors and one of those hits is a general timeline of 2006 which gives this organisation minor mention and the other hit also gives this organisation minor mention. The article was created and written by a user indefinitely blocked for copyright infringement (with minor copyedits by others) so it might also be a concern that this article is a copyright infringement. This organisation fails to meet

WP:ORG

as there is insufficient coverage in secondary source.

Delete. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable: only two references included in the article, one which barely mentions the party, and the other which doesn't mention it at all. ~~This probably should have been~~
~~prod'd.~~ (It was speedy'd, then prod'd, and now it's here. Silly me.)--Aervanath's signature is boring 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know what Google search was done above, but mine returned the following; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. --
Диалог 01:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- I did a search on "Salvation Union of South Ossetia". I guess your search picked up other variants such as "Union of Salvation of Ossetians". I'm sticking to delete given the circumstances behind the original author indefinite block and the fact that the article is unsourced. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You haven't found it on google because you were not searching in Georgian. If this is the political party/movement of the former Prime Minister, there's bound to be sources etc. that establish notability. Find them and fix it, don't delete because its received poor coverage in U.S. papers. MrPrada (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the English Wikipedia. How many editors are going to be able to search in the Georgian language?--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be some confusion over the actual name of the organization, a quick google search for Union, Salvation, Ossetian gives quite a clear picture that this is a relevant and notable party. --Soman (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, try a Russian google search, [11]. BBC has coverage on the party. --Soman (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable organization which unites ethnic Ossetians who want reunification with Georgia. The party has also organized "South Ossetian people for Peace movement" which yields no less than 600 hits via Google Search [12] [13]. User:Pocopocopocopoco has long been targeting the articles which deal with pro-Georgian Ossetian movements. His rationale for deletion is fake.--Kober^Talk 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I nominated another article in a similar topic area over six months ago you then conclude I am targeting the entire topic for deletion? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, stop pretending Poco. Everybody knows what you do. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per Kober. —Nightstallion 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kober. (PaC (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep per Kober. This deletion request is POV pushing. Iberieli (talk) 15:28, 18 April 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.