Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian legal history

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 put I've also placed a cleanup tag, this article needs some work and some expansion.--JForget 00:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian legal history[edit]

The sole contributor jumped into a really huge job, which sizzled: he is gone for two months now, and the the page is literally nothing but a chaotic collection of random names of Russian lawyers. And to add an insult, the fame of many of them has nothing to do with the development of Russian jurisprudence. I say delete this page which squats a valid topic and only keeps a misleadingly blue link. `'Míkka >t 05:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so the page needs clean-up and significant work; but you said yourself it's a valid topic. This is a content issue, not a deletion issue. matt91486 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion. This is a typical article that needs improvement.Biophys (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a good article but 2 months isn't enough to tell if organic growth will work or not. The topic is certainly valid and if more sources were added there would be plenty of material to work from. When at the same time those sources can't be too hard to dig up I don't see this as a deletion candidate yet. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a bit messy and list-ish, but that can be fixed with editing. AFD is not cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a perfectly good legal stub, with two WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you people blind or what? The article has no content at all! It is just a random list of names. `'Míkka >t 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. If you look at our comments, we all said that the article isn't in good shape right now. But content issues do not belong in articles for deletion. The topic is encyclopedic and so there is no reason to delete it. matt91486 (talk) 04:42, 11 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.