Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend (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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinjugend

These articles have previously closed as either keep or no consensus, and all are the matter of great contention in this area of editing on WP. So I think it is worth bringing them to AfD as a joint nomination, and allow us all to thrash them out for once and for all. All articles are built on terms which are only marginally notable, and do not really have a widespread usage, as I think can clearly be shown from previous AfDs on these very articles. Whilst previous AfDs may have set precedents and the like, we have to get back to basics and start raising the bar on what we should and shouldn't be allowing to creep into this encyclopaedia. Other articles may have been kept on the premise of other articles existing, so why not discuss them all together as a group and perhaps this will help to cut out the utter bullshit in this area of editing on WP. It is my firm hope, and belief, that others will see it the same way that I do, and agree that we are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to engage in advocacy, and if one looks at how people opine in this AfD compared to the other AfDs we may just see who is here for the good of the project and who is here to advocate. Russavia ^Dialogue 05:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are only marginally notable as per above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 06:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phone Call to Putin (2nd nomination) where one of the nominated articles was kept only 1 week ago, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia where another failed to reach consensus two weeks ago. JulesH (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling together such widely separated topics of disparate levels of notability and encyclopædic value for a single AFD seems to be a case of disruptive WP:POINT-making. It's especially obvious considering that all of these articles *were* on AFD very recently. I figure the nominator is trying to wrangle at least some of them going his way through a false equivalence after he was unhappy about the consensus developed in the original discussions. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per JulesH. JuJube (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as well as Phone call to Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ESStonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Putinland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The single article "Putinjugend" originally nominated has sources that seem fully adequate. ESStonia has sources that are harder for me to judge but seem also adequate. "Phone Call" is too early to renominate--I think that another 4 or 5 months should be required before the third nomination--at which I expect an even greater consensus to keep.. NOT CENSORED applies: we are not the Encyclopedia of nice things only, and the political implications of things are not our concern. DGG (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not (only) about 'political implications'. It's about general notability and WP:NOT. As I've already said, why then not start the long overdue Ansipism, Putin-Dobby, IlveSS,Obamajugend, Dorogoy Leonid Ilyich, Näksip, Nikita Kukuruznik, all of which also have quite a number of google hits. (Obamism has even 9,600!) I've already proposed finding a consensual solution to those creations, be it re-directing or merging.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Dubious nom; all three articles have been up for deletion within the last two months and not deleted. There's little point in simply repeatedly putting stuff up for AfD in the hope of obtaining the result you want. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might wish to consult Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a news report. Most, if not all, of those sources the articles have, belong to this category. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per WP:NOTAGAIN.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before engaging in WP:ALPHABETSOUP you might want to check the previous discussions and see, that there was no consensus in those cases, yet. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 14:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant, I'm afraid. A "no consensus" closure is still a closure. There's no point closing debates if people are going to perenially re-open them because they're unhappy with the outcome.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I thought WP:NOT, WP:V etc are more important than procedural rules, which hopefully will not prevent the users concerned from finding a solution, by evenignoring some rules ;-). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all- for my reasoning re: Phone Call, see the previous AFD. Nothing has changed in the two weeks or so since then (plus a related DRV, IIRC). For the others, they have multiple independent sources, indicating notability. If nom has problems with neutrality, they are free to edit it to correct the POV so that its more neutral. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A web-page or two using a term do not render the term relevant for an encyclopedia. Common sense tells us that encyclopedia has as articles only terms and subjects that have some relevance and notability. Encyclopedias are definitely not collections of derogatory neologisms. Would you expect to find an article entitled [eSStonia]] in Britannica? or Putinjugend in Encarta? No, you don't. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we're not talking web pages, we're talking about news stories. If they were just blogs run by people with an axe to grind against Putin, you'd have a case. But they're not, so you don't. As for the not finding it in Britannica or Encarta... So what? I wouldn't expect a discussion of do not want in there either. Doesn't make it not worthy of inclusion here. We cover things they don't. That's what makes us different from them. Nothing you're presenting here strikes me as a valid argument for deletion.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say in that case, we have two different opinions what an encyclopedia should include and what not. The stubs we treat here deserve some mention in more general and valid articles, e.g. Nashi/Anti-Estonian sentiment etc. It's amusing that surfacing here as strong supporters of inclusion are many people with no intimate relation with the Eastern European topic; and I find it as a step forward that 'insiders' have made reasonable suggestions, too. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog^{M. se fâche}(woof!) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep all, treat differently:
- Putinjugend: rename to Pro-Putin youth organizations in Russia (or more general and more common, Pro-Kremlin youth organizations: "pro-kremlin youth" is 12,600 google hits, "Pro-Putin youth" is 2,700 hits), a neutral term for notable subject
- eSStonia: merge into Anti-Estonian sentiment - huge overlap, neutral title; and there are more Russian hate coinages in the same style: AnSSip, etc. We are not going to write all these articles, are we?
- Phone call to Putin: redirect to Mikheyev v. Russia, since it is a single-context term with no evidence of wide usage in Russia

- 7-bubёn >t 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per DGG. Debate merging only after closing this AfD discussion.Biophys (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG. And stop the nominarions, please. We are not the Encyclopedia of nice things only, I like Miacek a lot, and the dogs too, but Russia has great things and not all so great thing also...

Warrington (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all. Isn't the nominator being a bit disruptive here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a discussion at Talk:Phone call to Putin to establish consensus on which title/version of the article is more appropriate for WP. (Igny (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect as already proposed. Standalone neologisms must go. §FreeRangeFrog 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I am concerned that creating articles such as these on marginal political subjects - often, it seems, using a neologism as a title - is being used for advocacy and POV pushing in Wikipedia. The bar must be set higher. Neutrality and reliability is more important than having an article on everything, especially when it comes to controversial political subjects such as these. Offliner (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and slap the nominator with a WP:TROUT. These were just debated a few weeks ago and re-hashing hoping that consensus has changed in the 2 to 3 weeks or that perhaps a different crowd shows up is gaming the system. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
End this disruptive process and deal with the articles individually. I went to merge eSStonia into Anti-Estonian sentiment as overwhelmingly recommended in the merge nomination. Merging the first into the second, it became apparent that there was only one paragraph that wasn't already there. When I went to do the redirect, I saw this page and thought I better check it out. I think the only purpose of this nomination must have been to bollox everything up. Idlewild101 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All reviewing each of the articles, there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability in all three articles. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The disscussion to merge eSStonia into Anti-Estonian sentiment has been closed as merge (see AfM). I took the liberty to perform a blind merge (no edit) and placed a deletion tag with a request not to delete until this discussion is completed. Is this all right? Dc76\^talk 14:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be on the safe side, I replaced the deletion tag with redirect. I assume, the issue with eSStonia is now solved. Am I right/wrong? Dc76\^talk 15:07, 7 February 2009 (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.