Talk:Washington Obkom

Tags

One needs to footnote all statements of general nature. Also, there is no apparent evidence that this term is widely used: no evidence presented that this is but a neologism of 1-2 journalists. In the latter case the article may be deleted as nonnotable. To prove the notabilitry of the term you have to provide the evidence, a reference, which says that the term is frequentry used by many. Google search seems to show its nonnotability. Timurite (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to search in Russian. --V1adis1av (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability

FYI: the article was deleted in Russian wikipedia. I guess Russians know better about the notability of the term in Russia. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I see that English version is translation of deleted page mirrored elsewhere. I am posting it for deletion unless the concerns expressed above and in the Russian AfD are addressed ASAP Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

PPS. I do like the term. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• The deletion of this article in russian Wiki is under heavy discussion now. Константин Халецкий (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • My point (I forgot to mention) was that Russian wikipedia has very lax traditions as to article verifiability, notability, etc. So, if it was deleted even in ru: , then something is probably really missing. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Article restored and in process of rewriting in russian wiki Константин Халецкий (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for Date of introduction

A 1999 publication says here that introduced in 1999. However the source looks rather informal. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing 101

Give an example of usage. Otherwise, what's the point? 76.23.157.102 (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)