Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitch Wars

Bitch Wars

The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, and it has been tagged as such for quite some time. RobertM525 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per countering systemic bias, clearly interesting and notable subject, there are hundreds of thousands of articles more demanding of afd than this. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other articles are worse" is not sufficient grounds for an article to be kept. Per WP:PROVEIT, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'd love to see this article sourced and kept, but if it isn't, it needs to go. And those other articles? Yeah, they should be nominated for deletion, too; not used as grounds to justify the existence of other articles like them. RobertM525 (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is when systemic bias is such an important issue on wikipedia, so I simply disagree with the first part of your comment. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove the "Thanks" part from your comments? It's reeeeally annoying. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - found some minors sources but nothing to meet WP:N. SunCreator (talk) 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your ignorance is not the reason for deletion. If you want references, why don't you ask about it politely at Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board? Obviously the topic is of notability, not some junk fictional universes from computer games or pornstars. `'Míkka >t 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair to the nominator the {{unreferenced}} tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability.
- The article was written three years ago when policies of WP:V were lax and deletionism was not so rampant. "And right now" people have life besides wikipedia, you know. I have at last found some time to waste and added references. I doubt you will find anything in English online. `'Míkka >t 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject, often referred in the Gulag-related literature Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are provided. I can believe that the subject of the article is real and notable, but without any references to prove it, it can't be included in Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) On second thoughts, keep. A Google search finds this mention [1], which isn't much, but is enough to convince me that this was a notable historical phenomenon. Given that, the article should stay; it can always be improved later. Terraxos (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another sign of cultural bias against Eastern Europe. - Darwinek (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read a bit about blatnoy culture and this adds up for me. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article might not be (admittedly) well cited, it is a well documented historical event. It was featured on the History Channel, "Organized Crime: Russian Mafia" program. Arm (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone actually produces a reliable source (hearsay and blogs don't count). When this is done, I suggest moving the article to something like Snitch wars in Soviet prisons as the current title is too vague and suggestive (I was expecting something about gangsta rappers). Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]