Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Russian state

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 redirect to Kievan Rus'. Redirect, no merge: problems are raised concerning the content of the article, and the sourcing is below par. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Russian state

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

It looks like an wp:original research. The problem is that there is no difference between "Old Rus' state" and "Old Russian state" in Russian language: both terms could be translated as "Древнерусское государство". Secondly, the term "Древнерусское государство" is used in historiography not from 2011. For example this term was used in title of the book of Historian Michail Artamonov in 1939. See: История СССР. Т. 1. С древнейших времен до образования древнерусского государства. Макет/ Под общей редакцией М. И. Артамонова. — Кн. 1—2. — М.-Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1939.

The term Old Russian/Old Rus' state is just a historiographical construct like the term Kievan Rus. Sure there is a strong debate in historiography which term is better for describing Rus' state, but both terms are popular in historiography in Russia as well as in Ukraine. So I think, that the problem of translation of the term "Древнерусское государство" from Russian, or "Давньоруська держава" from Ukrainian should be just cleared in the article Old Rus' state. Ушкуйник (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Me and User:Swpb tried to redirect this article to "Kievan Rus'" [1][2], but our edits were reverted by the now-blocked author of the article [3][4]. In the edit summary, he claimed that "Old Russian state is not Kyivan Rus". I proposed two articles to be merged, but User:Toddy1 opposed this on the talk page of the article (Talk:Old Russian state#Merge discussion). Vanjagenije (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - probably to Old Rus' state. This whole business seems to be tied up with a historic argument over who the Rus were, which is highly charged with political POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we could merge to Old Rus' state, as that is just a redirect to Kievan Rus'. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If Old Russian state is a propaganda term, then it merits an article separate from Kievan Rus'. If it's just another name for Kievan Rus', it should be a redirect. The OP states that its WP:OR to say its propaganda. It's true that the Russian sources don't state it's propaganda, but they wouldn't even if it were. In the end, it's not up to us to reason about it being propaganda or not; we need a reliable secondary source. Without that, it's probably better turned into a redirect. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear A D Monroe III, Old Rus' state and Kievan Rus' are two historiographical terms, which are used to describe so called medieval Rus' state, or Rus' land; both terms are popular in historical works in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. I can bring many different sources to demonstrate it. There is only one problem: the problem of translation in English, because there are two ways to translate the term "Древнерусское государство". That's why I think, that this article is just an wp:original research, which based on misunderstanding of language specific. Ушкуйник (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ушкуйник: Either I don't understand your point, or you mine. Except when you use phrases like "I think it's OR" (which implies more OR), I've agreed with you. We need an independent source to say it's propaganda, not just Russian sources that use it like it might be propaganda. If we cannot find such sources, this article should probably become a redirect to Kievan Rus'. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article title should almost certainly be a redirect to Kievan Rus'. The content might be usable in Rus (name)#From Rus' to Russia or somewhere similar, as current illustrative material relating to the terminological discussion there - but, if used that way, it probably needs to be rewritten to avoid its current use of implicit SCAREQUOTES and balanced by similar material relating to other naming choices for Kievan Rus'. PWilkinson (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 16:43, 23 February 2015 (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.