Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinisms (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putinisms

This article is based on the premise of the stated definition of Putinisms but in fact is nothing more than a collection of quotes which are present at Wikiquote, and a mish-mash of mindless trivia; is it actually encyclopaedic that the Lithuanian spelling of Putin is identical to that of the arrowood plant. C'mon, do we place on Kozlodui what that word means in Russian? No, we don't, and we certainly don't try to build an article out of such mindless drivel. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic (see analysis futher below). ~~Also, serious WP:BLP violation with the Dobby picture.~~ VG ☎ 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeesh. Delete per the nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia besides nominator supports the views and policies of Vladimir Putin (as is proven by a userbox on his userpage he deleted today (was the KGB also this clumsy in hiding it's true intentions?)) very suspicious that he tries to delete this article that contains criticism of Mr. Putin. Seems like a whitewash attempt... P.S. I like Yulia Tymoshenko a lot (a userbox I'll never delete (some of us are brave...)). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) We're an encyclopaedia, not a pro nor anti Putin forum. Just because the nominator may hold pro-Putin views, does not necessarily render his nomination of that dreadful article invalid. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I support Putin or not is neither here nor there. If you want to know why I have/had certain things on my userpage, is so that my views are known and out in the open (unlike many others), and because of that, I will be evermore careful to keep NPOV. This nomination is based on the merits. How exactly does this article contain criticism of Putin? It's simply a bunch of quotes which can be found on Wikiquote, and a bunch of mindless trivia. If one is looking for criticism of Putin, look here; as that is the next article which is going to be put on the AfD block, for being a WP:POVFORK of content which is already contained in the main article. We haven't really crossed paths all that much Mariah-Yulia, but I know on those occasions that we have crossed paths, I am the reasonable person that I come across as here, and refuse to get involved in the nuttery that is so prevalent in this area; it's high time for sanity to take over. And by the way, I too am beginning to like Tymoshenko, she appears more and more level headed as time goes on. ~~You and I should try and really collaborate on an article sometime, and you will see that your comments above are way off the mark. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or via email anytime.~~ offer to collaborate striken due to Mariah-Yulia's use of an ethnic-slur directed towards myself here --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like Bushisms and other similar articles. "Dobby" is not a BLP violation as this is sourced to BBC, see here and other reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I removed this stuff from main article Putin per BLP. Do you suggest all of that back to article Putin?Biophys (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that a reliable source also printed that Tom Cruise was gay? It doesn't stop it from being a potential BLP concern. Additionally, the lead of the article states "Putinisms" (Russian: путинизмы) are the unique peculiar words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, semantic or linguistic errors and gaffes that have occurred in the public speaking of Russian President Vladimir Putin." What comes after that is a mish-mash of original research made up of standard quotes, off-the-cuff remarks, and trivia. That is the reason this is here where it is as the assertion of supposedly notability of Putinisms has not been met. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text of this article was prepared mostly by User:ellol. I only placed it here, with a few minor modifications.Biophys (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite irrelevant who prepared the material, the fact of the matter is, is that what is on the article belongs on Wikiquote (for which a link is provided on the Putin article), or is WP:TRIVIA. That's the basis on which this has been brought here, and it's also the basis upon which it should be deleted. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Putin is not Dobby. He is a character from the The Hunt for Red October. NVO (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What character do you mean?Biophys (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captain second rank Ivan Yuryevich Putin, noone else. NVO (talk) 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH. Its a non-notable neologism and the article merely strings together quotes from Putin that have a questionable connection with that neologism. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources and the existance of Bushisms. Ostap 04:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or replace - I would say that either keeping this article or having the link to WikiQuotes above the Reference section of the Vladimir Putin page. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя ^{Rant | Contributions} 06:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis. First, the term bushism is supported by a book, while the term putinism is a WP:NEO based on the flimsiest of evidence: a tree-page paper in an obscure student conference! Second, bushisms are funny gaffes. I don't see anything funny in the quotes section, e.g. "Russia must realize its full potential in high-tech sectors such as modern energy technology, transport and communications, space and aircraft building." HAGGER is more fun than that quote! Third, the "Putin in humour and fiction" section is off-topic in this article (Dobby included). The "Anecdotes" section is the only one with some salvageable content. But there's no evidence that those events were called putinisms by more than a couple of people, so calling them that is pure WP:OR. I think the article should be renamed Anecdotes involving Vladimir Putin, and it should contain only the "Anecdotes" section. Putin in humour and fiction should be a separate article. VG ☎ 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Actually, this is a conference of "young scientists", not students (incorrect translation from Russian). First section with citations can indeed be removed. Nothing precludes creation of an additional article Putin in humour and fiction, which does not undermine this article.Biophys (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this is an utterly obscure conference. Basing the title of an article that contains unrelated information on an obscure source is a severe form of WP:COATRACK. The Washington Post uses Putinism with a completely different meaning [1]. VG ☎ 19:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article probably should be expanded but surely not be deleted. And maybe soon we will also get Medvedevisms since he seems to copy Putin more and more in the way he speaks. Närking (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. VG ☎ 19:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what did you mean with that? Maybe putinisms isn't as established as bushism in the west yet, but at least my Russian friends tells me lots about it and it's surely established in Russia. The Russian "deletists" here should know about that. So I can't understand why putinisms should be deleted. Maybe the article isn't it the best form right now but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Or do you suggest all articles should be deleted just because they need to be expanded. Närking (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: maybe soon we will also get Medvedevisms - already happened for March 2008. Naturally regarding the media situation primarly via internet, but good documented in international press. Elysander (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An appropriate sampling with discussion is appropriate here; there['s enough content to be appropriate for separating from the main article. Not all of what is in the article is appropriate for Wikiquote. There will always be some overlap. A number of the individual ones have been included & commented on in news stories, so there's material. Some of them already do have such references. The title of the article is the standard way of wording the concept in English--the extent of use of the corresponding Russian word is relevant, this not being ruWP. The various personal & political comments above have nothing to do with the question of whether to have the article. Content can be discussed in a civil manner on the talk page. DGG (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any sampling is original research because "putinisms" a is neologism based on the flimsiest of a source (see my analysis above). VG ☎ 22:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH. Per Pocopoco...--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and BTW, he's not similar to that Dobby but to the similar thing from LOTR, just forgot the name..--TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no. Russia is not Mordor :) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which just happens to be Number 1 on Top 10 Russophobe Myths. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 11:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for quotes or amusing stories. There is little to no evidence in the article that this topic has been covered as a whole by reliable sources and the linking together done in the article borders on synthesis. If reliable sources can be found for the neologism then enough sourcing would still be required to write an article that was beyond just a dictionary definition with a list of example. Guest9999 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a perfect article, by any means, but the phenomenon has garnered significant coverage, and some coherent, encyclopedic content could emerge thence. Biruitorul ^Talk 22:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems better suited for Wikiquote. A ni Mate 02:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Putins page should already have a link to wikiquote, so this is redundant. Also based on a neologism, and the selection of quotes by editors makes it synthesis.Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Use Wikiquote if anything is worth mentioning. Kransky (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but the article must be expanded systematically. The phenomenon which is circumscribed as Putinisms is well known, rather good documented and its existence cannot be denied - and it's worth an own article. It is not only limited to Russian vox populi but also a regular topic in international papers and TV stations over the last years as - for example presented in Nouvel Observateur or in German quality papers as Süddeutsche Zeitung, DIE ZEIT, WELT and German ARD TV. Personally I'm missing the "circumcision/castration" anecdote on EU-Russia-Summit 2002. Elysander (talk) 15:39, 6 October 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.