Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign observers of Russia

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign observers of Russia

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

This is trivial, almost random. E.g. entries such as "922: Ahmed ibn Fadlan travelled from Bagdad to near Kazan, saw Vikings, 1682: John Milton A Brief History of Muscovy compiled from other sources, 1687: Foy de la Neuville possibly travelled in Russia". And it also curiously just ends in 1919 (and doesn't pick up after the dissolution of the Soviet Union). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basis of the article is unclear, article name is potentially false or a misnomer. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 07:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Well, it's an interesting, well-defined, bluelinked list which we could define (and rename) as "Travel writers who visited pre-revolutionary Russia" (or something similar if you want "up to and including the Russian Revolution"), surely a notable topic, and one for which there are plenty of sources, including, clearly, books or other documents by or about each of the people in this list. I agree with Justin that the current title isn't quite right, but that's easily fixed. The key thing is that the criterion for list inclusion is clear and definite, and that the number of people who could be included is not unreasonably large. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that some of these people, according to the article, wrote about Russia without ever visiting: "1515 Jacob Piso: Polish anti-Russian propaganda, never in Russia"; "1519 Christian Bomhover: Teutonic Knight, first book solely on Russia, very hostile, never visited Russia, little cited by later authors"; "1525–1543: Albert Compense, Paolo Giovo, Johan Fabri: Favorable accounts in interest of church union. Never in Russia." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list encompasses all sorts of states, peoples and regions in what is now Russian territory, e.g. Kievan Rus', Grand Duchy of Moscow, etc. How do you observe something that wasn't there at the time? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment from originator: As the original author I would rate the quality as low to moderate. I wrote it mainly to summarize Poe's book. It helps the corresponding category in that it says something about the observers rather than merely listing them, something that applies to any category. As for 'random'. 'did not visit', 'did not yet exist', that applies to the earliest sources for any country. It does not appear to be false or completely trivial or harmful. If the consensus were delete I whould not strongly object. Benjamin Trovato (talk)
Generally support Chiswick Chap. The writings of visiting travellers are a useful historical source. This applies (for example) to industrial innovation in 18th century England. It may well be that the list needs significant pruning. The hostile foreign non-visitors may or may not be useful: they may have been reporting what they heard of Russia in their own lands: a less good source, but not necessarily useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity or Wikidata. Appears to be original research falling under political science or history. Michael Ten (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, the first entry -- the account of Ahmed ibn Fadlan -- is quite notable, being referenced in numerous works. For more recent times, we have Kremlinology#Notable_Kremlinologists_and_Sovietologists. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is unclear since the list incorporates visits to areas not necessarily the part of "Russia." This would be better represented by a category than a list article. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable subject, the limits are fairly well defined. This is exactly the sort of subject thaat must have a list, rather than a category, because it is necessary to attach a few words of explanation to each entry to make sense, because of the wide geographic area and the various contexts. (This is plain compilation, and no more original research than any WP article.) I do not see in what way the title is "false or a misnomer". The nom may not have realized that the first entry is a famous visit from the most famous traveller, and the Vikings he saw were the founders of what became Russia. The later entries which appear selective, were mostly people who also wrote famous accounts. What this list needs is additional context for those who do not understand the significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. I agree with DGG's comments re title. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2017 (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.