Talk:Russian response to Hurricane Katrina

Is this seperate article needed?

As I said in my merger edit, while I find this article interesting, does it need to be seperate from the International response to Hurricane Katrina article. As it is, we are getting way too many articles for tihs one storm, and it seems that these 4 paragraphs would do better in contex with the rest of the world. Donovan Ravenhull 13:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be separated for the same reasons Operation Flaming Dart, Operation Starlite and Operation Hastings are separated from Vietnam War. Remember that Wikipedia is also for "the rest of the world", not just the United States. We need to stay focused on countering the systemic bias in Wikipedia, and also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. --Tsaddik Dervish 16:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit this, when I made that proposal, I was not aware that there were about 4 other similar [insert nation]'s response to Katrina's out there, so this was not an attack on Russia or such. I do continue to believe that we are evolving out too many articles about this storm, as horrible as it was. I will stand off and watch for now. Donovan Ravenhull 10:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not needed stand alone. It should be incorporated into the main international response article. The reference to the Mexican immigrant does not appear to be encyclopedic material. Not cited and irrelevant. Who cares what a random individual thinks about the Russian response, I'm sure you could put up a million different individual viewpoints. Remove the article, or at the very least that ridiculous non cited 'quotation'. Chiefofmsiss 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no benefit of having it separate. I believe it should be merged with International response to Hurricane Katrina. --Lysy^talk 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PROD contested

I undeleted the article since "unencyclopedic" is not a reason to delete an article, and a merge discussion was pending. Therefore I've undeleted the article and put a merge tag on it. --Core desat 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]