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 no consensus. AFD isn't the place for ethinic disputes, clear cut no-consensus. Secret ^account 23:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ESStonia[edit]

ESStonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A nonnotable pejorative pun with the name "Estonia" used by anti-Estonian Russians. There is no analytical articles which discuss this term, only examples of usage. Mukadderat (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a failed attempt to translate into English a Russian pun. Incidentally, the cyrillic alphabet does not have the character "S". ("C" is used as the equivalent of the Latin "S"). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a failed attempt. It is exactly how it is spelt in Russian. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge content into Anti-Estonian sentiment. This is more than a neologism, it is a protologism, and I don't think english Wikipedia should be used as a vehicle to promote protologisms or be a venue for disgruntled Users to create WP:POINT articles because an AfD went against them. Martintg (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you voted to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. Why's that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So did a lot of other people. The difference is that there are scholarly papers written on the Putinjugend, it has been subject so study and analysis. Not so with the term eSStonia, this article only describes its usage. Therefore it should be deleted and the content merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment. Martintg (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no scholarly papers written on Putinjugend. There are scholarly papers written on Pro-Kremlin youth groups, which use the term either in the title or in passing in the paper itself. There's a difference. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article clearly states "The term perceives Estonia as a neo-Nazi state which glorifies its Nazi past whilst it desecrates war memorials dedicated to the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany in the Great Patriotic War." That is sourced to 3 different sources, and describes the etymology and reasoning behind the term. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is an academic paper on the topic: Nasi - Die Putin-Jugend by Ulrich Schmid, professor of Russian culture and society at St. Gallen University. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That paper is on Nashi, but which uses the word Putinjugend as a descriptor for the organisation. No difference here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand To use some arguments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place., etc. Well known Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin has used the term to describe Estonia within the context of the controversy, as have other political commentators in Russia. We have articles on Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, Putinism, etc and these are terms which are either fringe terms or are used in a disparaging way. Edward Lucas, who frequently attacks Russia in his articles and books has used both Putinjugend and eSStonia in his articles, and is used as references in both articles (2 separate articles in this instance), and he himself recognises that eSStonia is a widely used term. So keep as per that, and for fighting systematic bias in Russian topics. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to expand? So in other words what you are saying is that this article eSStonia is just a WP:POINT creation by you because you disagree with the result of various AfDs for the articles Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin and Putinism. Martintg (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no point to it. It's a widely used term (as acknowledged by Edward Lucas), and it deserves an article. The only WP:POINT, I guess, is the hypocrisy that some will vote to keep or delete based upon their own biases, and not within policy. And as one can see from eSStonia, it is just as well sourced, as Putinjugend. The creation of this article has been done purely because the sources are there which describe what is behind the term, and also usage of the term in contemporary Russia. Nashi, the Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda have used the term. Yabloko have asked regarding the legality of usage of the term (which nothing more is known about). And media outlets such as The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosblat, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda have published information about the usage of the term. It's more than notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex below has put it quite succinctly. If our inclusion standards allow Putinjugend, based upon only a few sources using the term in passing, there is no difference for this one, except this one has documentary actual usage of the term in different sectors of Russian society. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - marginally notable neologism. Still the notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources and some real-life newspaper campaign. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend, I guess the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article tells: Along with the term eSStonia, President of Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves was referred to as IlveSS, and Prime Minister of Estonia Andrus Ansip was referred to as AnSSip. But an article that mentioned Putin-Dobby has been deleted, even with references to New York Times and BBC. Any logic? Do we want "Putin-Dobby" back?Biophys (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays let us start raising it. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as long as neologisms like Putinjugend, Phone Call to Putin, etc., are allowed in WP. Rationale for keeping is essentially the same. P.S. A note for uninvolved editors: It’s amazing to see how all this circus votes ‘delete’ here, while pushing ‘keep’ in, for instance, [1] and [2]. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alex Bakharev. KNewman (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This sad thing does exist and you can not get rid of it by deleting the article. And it is good to know about it anyway.Warrington (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seems the main argument for "Keep" here is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Putin-Dobby, with 118 news hits, certainly looks more notable than eSStonia with its total of 18 news hits. Martintg (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, with eSStonia kept, are you going to write Putinland article, for the fun of ethnic wars on wikipedia? Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See below --Russavia
• Keep per Beatle Fab Four. ellol (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need such propaganda rubbish here, as we don't need Putin-Dobby or Putinland, either. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha-ha. IP from Tallinn. "Provocation" from our Baltic friends? :))))) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" is seen as a "provocation", what next? If you didn't know, 36% of Tallinn residents are ethnic Russian. Martintg (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article has no significant encyclopedic content. It is a nonnotable slur, a deliberate distortion of the name of the country. At best it belongs to wiktionary. Xuz (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pr WP:NOTSOAPBOX. The whole story is nothing more or less than a politically motivated "cheap jibe" according to the source provided by Russavia. Any possible "encyclopedic content" in the article should go either to Anti-Estonian sentiment or Estonia–Russia relations. The bottom line:Wikipedia doesn't need another article that deals with the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy--Termer (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be a politically motivated POVFORK of Estonia, but then you state that any content should be moved to other articles? There are at least a half a dozen or so articles where a link to this article could be placed. It is no different to Putinjugend which compares Pro-Kremlin youth groups (note the NPOV title but which is a redlink) to NAZI Germany and in the same breathe also puts Putin down as being a NAZI. Edward Lucas, a prominent anti-Russian journalist, has stated that the term was widely used and even gives etymology behind the term. As people who "voted" to keep Putinjugend noted, I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. It's a wellknown term..., wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasures., This term is used in mass media. Besides, the article seems to be well sourced., eSStonia is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Why should it be any different here? People have taken note of the apparent standards for inclusion into WP thru AfDs such as that are allowed, so there is no reason why this should not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Putinjugend would be related here. Unless it's about making a WP:Point, like it seems, a little like if "Putinjugend is OK for Wikipedia, so should be eSStonia"? and sorry for my lack of "good faith" here, but cherry picking in Wikipedia a country of 1 million for a revenge of WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend is kind of pathetic I think. Why don't you guys pick on someone that fits your size if you want to make a point due to Putinjugend?--Termer (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Termer, with Edward Lucas, he has a reputation amongst many quarters of being a Russophobe, Estophile and Polonophile. Of course he will call it a "cheap jibe", because it is against Estonia. You will also note that in one of the articles he states "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." But one will note that less than a month before that he himself evoked NAZI name-calling with Putinjugend. (That article is used as a source in that article). But whether he regards it as a cheap jibe, or not, he lends notability to the term. Your latest comments seem to be a IDONTLIKEIT-like comment. WP is not censored, and as much as I hate having shit like this on WP, the AfD for Putinjugend showed us the standards for inclusion on WP, and it was on that basis that I have introduced this article, based upon those standards for inclusion. I don't write anything on WP that isn't notable. Also, you will note in the article that I have included the information that the Saint Petersburg branch of Yabloko asked for intervention because it is their belief that it breaches the Russian criminal code, but it appears nothing ever came from it. The reality of the matter is that a large section of Russia does believe that Estonia glorifies its NAZI past, whilst at the same time it desecrates Soviet war memorials, and 60% of Russians regard Estonia as an enemy of their nation...eSStonia is merely a notable manifestation of that belief. You don't like it, others may not like it, I don't like it, but it is a notable term, and it is notable Russian POV...or is that POV not allowed on WP anymore (if at all in the first place)? --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you keep confirming that "eSStonia" is only about a revenge for WP:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend? I think it speaks for itself and needs no further comments. Other than "eSStonia" as an ethnic slur in Russia is clearly WP:UNDUE in English Wikipedia unlike the term Putinjugend that has 9 returns in google scholar, and 21 @ google books--Termer (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confirming nothing. It is a term along the same lines as Evil Empire, Great Satan, Axis of Evil, Old Europe, Hindu Taliban, etc. It is a notable political neologism, not an ethnic slur. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire was repeatedly used by Ronald Reagan. You might have heard of him. He was an old movie actor come politician somewhere in Northern America. He's generally considered notable.

Great Satan was invented and popularised by Saddam Hussein. You might have heard of him. He was a bearded tyrant and warmonger who lived in Baghdad, and whose poor judgment in choosing friends ultimately became his undoing. He's generally considered notable.

Axis of Evil was invented by Karl Rove and popularised by George W. Bush. You might have heard of them. While neither had beards, both had poor taste in friends, and have been dethroned by their people by now. They're generally considered notable.

Which notable person has gone on record with a speech or article using eSStonia as a catchphrase? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language internet [3] doesn't make "eSStonia" a notable political neologism. It's mentioned about 3X in coupler of English language newspapers, has zero results in any printed books pr WP:RS unlike Evil Empire with 13,400 returns in books. And you surely only talk about how Putinjugend is relevant to this discussion suggesting there is a connection here.--Termer (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is relevant: [4]. Biophys (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the relevance is about the Russian Putinjugend painting a picture of Estonia as a Fascist state? In case this is so, the only thing that would be relevant here is the Freedom in the World (report) and Estonia's and Russia's places in it. Where Estonia is listed as one of the Free countries in the world vs. Russia that is categorized as Not Free. Considering such facts the proposed parallelism between 2 articles eSStonia and Putinjugend suggested by Russavia has no basis whatsoever.--Termer (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-language internet most definitely makes it notable, as it explicitly says that the term is used in Russia. And English-language sources have also commented on it. As to Digwuren's questions, a term does not have to be uttered by a notable person to make it notable, but it has been used by notable entities such as Nashi, Young Guard, Komsomolskaya Pravda, and its usage has also been mentioned by The Economist, MK Gazeta, Kommersant, Rosbalt, Novaya Gazeta, Vzglyad, Grani.ru, Estonian Novosti, Svoboda News (RFE/RL) and Komsomolskaya Pravda, plus more. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, Konstantin Zatulin, a member of the State Duma and director of the Institute of CIS Studies has used this term, as per this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on disruption I do not much care if this article remains or not, I'm here to analyse an obvious breaching of WP:POINT. There are a set of users here who have been violently opposing similar articles about Russia or the Russian government, often because of their own nationalist feelings. I remember how User:Russavia, the creator of this ESStonia article, even argumented that "ESStonia was not acceptable either" as an argument to oppose those articles. Those articles are now cited by them as a reason to keep this article even though they still oppose the cited examples. This article is quite obviously created not to improve the quality of wikipedia, but only for battleground purposes, and thereby widening the gap between the already-disrupted relations between Russian nationalist editors who do everything to protect the post-soviet Russian government, and those writing critically or neutraly about Russian history (including other Russians). WP:POINT clearly states: It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition.. I don't think this is acceptable and it should be remembered. Grey Fox (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Russavia, originally voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinjugend. The result of this AfD was "No consensus". In his complaint to User:Xasha over the outcome of that Afd, he raises the idea of creating eSStonia in retaliation. Again he mentions the prospect of this creating article during request to the closing admin User:Stifle to reconsider his closure. When Russavia then does follow through and creates the article in his userspace first, admin User:Orangemike expressed the problems of notability, again Russavia cites the Putinjugend article as his justification. After moving the article into mainstace, he further justifies the creation of eSStonia by claiming "Putinjungend is the rebuttal". Martintg (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assumption of good faith there Grey-Fox. For the record, on Putinjugend AfD you expressed your opinion of "Putinjugend is a well-sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place.". The only place I have even mentioned eSStonia is here; you should remember it, as you all stalked me there, and I raised the question in would people use the same arguments? I went ahead and created the article in userspace (which Martintg tried having speedied by stalking me) and I ensured that it is notable and NPOV before placing into mainspace. It is notable, as there is a source which explains what the term means, and then there are sources which give usage of the term. It's as simple as that. And be careful Grey-Fox when accusing me of such rubbish, because I do recall that you gamed the system in removing information from a peer-reviewed reliable source which described Litvinenko as a one-man disinformation bureau. But anyway, this discussion is on this article, and this article alone. Is it a notable term? Yes it is, because it is described by multiple reliable sources. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did vote delete in Putinjugend, Martintg, for it is in my belief not a notable term. But many editors, including most of those who are actually attacking me now here, "voted" keep, even though I demonstrated that it's usage is very low. You even made the utterly ridiculous comment on the article talk page that "Nashi" is the neologism. But due to the outcome of that AfD, it has been determined that it is a notable term, so there is no reason that this is not a notable term also. I don't believe that any of this shit honestly belongs in an encyclopaedia, but going by past AfD's it seems opinion is against me (and others). Don't forget to mention also that you stalked me, and that after Orangemike speedied it, I contacted him and he re-instated it, and you again tried to speedy it, which I reverted, and which you then tried to get arbitration enforcement unsuccessfully on me. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You virtually admitted that you created this article in reponse to Putinjugend. This is classic WP:POINT behaviour, which clearly states: "It can sometimes be tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. Such tactics are considered to be disruptive and spiteful, as others are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition..". Martintg (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have virtually admitted nothing. I have stated very clearly and I mean what I say and I say what I mean. This is a term which I had heard of in the past, and which I believed was notable, but was unsure if it were notable enough for WP. Given the AfD for Putinjugend, plus other AfDs, it was then my belief that this indeed a notable term for inclusion on WP. Most of the opposes miss the fact that there are sources for this information and are based probably upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Russavia, I'm not going to bother disussing this with you like you enjoy discussing every tiny thing for hours, if not days. You've already uttered a couple of personal attacks on this page and the evidence on your disruptive behaviour speaks for itself. Grey Fox (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete easy decision as this is neither notable nor encyclopedic. Ostap 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we can and should (and indeed do) mention this in Anti-Estonian sentiment, but to have an article created solely because another article the creator didn't like was kept is silly. We shouldn't have to accommodate WP:POINT violators that way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be a retaliation for keeping the article Putinjugend [5] and described by the article creator as in the group of "fringe terms which are used only to disparage the subject." I have to agree with that assessment, the term seems fringe, hence delete. Hobartimus (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and expand. Esstonia is a good sourced and widely used term. As wiki is not censored it should have its place. Google search for "esstonia" gives 408.000 hits (results to assure some corellation between term and meaning in this article). Thus, it is justified as a standalone article. I can't see why this widely used term should be deleted just because some doesn't like it. wikipedia should be a neutral protocol of realities, actually used terms etc. and not decided by individuals' displeasuresXasha (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the name of an ArbCom decision named after me (yay!) I, Digwuren, point out that Xasha's comment here is in violation of a topic ban by AGK. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note that this comment was made by a user who has left Wikipedia, but not before adding his vote here, out of spite, it would seem. Note too the conspiracy the article's creator engaged in with this user before creating it. Should we really keep such tainted material? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy? It was an observation of mine made to another editor. Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinisms (2nd nomination), which looked like this at the time of deletion, in which a slew of editors voted keep based not upon policy, but on their opinions. And often it is done just to oppose the person who is nominating. I can show an example of where an editor who is stalking my edits noticed an image which I nominated for discussion, and he stalked me to the IfD and placed a simple "Keep" vote, and then lied and said it had been discussed before (which it had not).

• Delete. This is wrong Google query above. The term seems to be insufficiently notable. All useful content should be moved to Russian propaganda or "Anti-Estonian sentiment". See also arguments by Marting.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is as notable as Putinjugend or Phone Call to Putin. It has as many valid references as those terms. It isn't just Anti-Estonian sentiment, but it has a place also in Estonia–Russia relations, Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, Bronze Night, Aftermath of the Bronze Night, 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian), Monument of Lihula, plus others. The term is clearly notable, as WP shows this time and time and time and time again, and merging it seems, is a matter for editors, not AfD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"eSStonia" is a term now? Perhaps you simply don't know what a term means? Or else in what kind of subject matter this kind of supposed terminology is used?--Termer (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a revenge article, should be deleted per WP:POINT alone. Because of the Economist article title it may be mentioned in the article anti-Estonian sentiment, but in a much shorter form. (A sentence about this is sufficient.) Squash Racket (talk) 07:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tad bit WP:BIAS. Why are Komsomolskaya Pravda, Novaya Gazeta, Kommersant, etc not regarded as reliable sources here to establish notability? It's no different to terms such as Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Freedom fries, Great Satan, Evil Empire, Hindu Taliban, etc. WP is supposed to have a world wide view of realities in that world. Just where is the WP:POINT? I didn't create the article in order to have it listed here, I created the article because past AfDs have noted that notability can be established. I have never expressed a personal opinion that Estonia is a neo-Nazi state, and I have merely stated in the article what the reliable and notable sources say, for this is what we do on WP, is it not? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • As I so patiently explained above, those catchphrases are not notable on their own; they're notable because somebody notable advanced them. Who is that elusive notable person who advanced this one? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't patiently explain anything, you are claiming for a term to be notable that is needs to be uttered by a notable person. That is not how WP works, for if it worked like that we could start an article on Fucking lunatic, a term advanced by Sergey Lavrov to describe Misha, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. They, including this term, is notable, because it and its usage has been covered by reliable sources. Anyway, if you would care to look above, your question was answered some time ago. There are now some thirteen sources on the article which establishes notability as per what is community consensus on many previous AfDs and the notability guideline itself, and the nominators reason that it being non-notable is not correct. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - since many similar neologism articles mentioned above were kept, this should consequently be kept as well. Offliner (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation: Those that support "Keep" assert that notability is established by the usage of the term within the Russian media and internet. While this may well be true in the case of Russian Wikipedia, it is not true in regard to English Wikipedia. Within english usage there are only two press articles in regard to the term, both published in the Economist within weeks of each other and most likely written by the same author. There is no other usage elsewhere in the English language media. If the standard of notability of a term (which Wiktionary is more suited) is prevalence in foreign language media and internet, then foreign derogatory terms like "tiblastan" could be considered as notable as "eSStonia". This is nuts. Martintg (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would not the English language sources (The Economist) give notability to the term for English WP? By the way Tiblastan has not even been mentioned by a reliable English language source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Added scholarly source which states "Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism." --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hoped something could be salvaged here, but (see the talkpage) I've now come to conclusion that this is a hopeless WP:COATRACK article with no hope of redemption. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yet another AfD has closed as keep, and it was mentioned that one of the sources which lends it's hand to the notability was the existence of this article which stated that the term is widely used in Russia (even though not a single editor answered any questions asked of them asking for other sources, which is a common thing it seems). Using that article is no different to using this source and this source to establish the same notability in English wikipedia. I also notice that User:Termer has changed his opinion from the article being a WP:POVFORK of Estonia, to being a WP:SOAPBOX. WP:SOAPBOX is not valid in this instance either, as I am not expressing my belief in the article that Estonia is a fascist state, blah blah blah, but have presented what the sources state. And those sources now come from Russia, Latvia, Estonia, United States and the UK. Not speaking Estonian though doesn't help me, as it has been mentioned also in other Estonian press such as this, this, and this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, lets keep it simple: any suggestion that "Estonia is a fascist state" without an attempt to describe the topic from a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia would be WP:SOAPBOXing. Not only because of the Freedom in the World (report) is in conflict with such an idea, but more relevant would be the Warning that is clear about it: All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground...in particular, by making generalized accusations that...a particular national group ...harbor Nazi sympathies -. So until the article keeps advancing the position of "Estonia is a Fascist state" by even ignoring the sources provided in the article itself that speak about exact opposite, Sorry but I can't see the whole thing in any other way than WP:SOAPBOXing.--Termer (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop gaming Arbcom decisions. I have at no time said that "Estonia is a fascist state" or that "Estonians are fascists or nazis". I have, however, included into an article on what is a notable subject, the opinion garnered from reliable sources that some hold the opinion that Estonia is a fascist state, and have attributed it accordingly. For example, the article reads, "Nashi also evoked the term when they accused the Estonian state of cultivating fascism", it does not read "Russavia thinks that Estonia is a fascist state" (because not only is it against policy for me to place my own opinion in articles, but because it's not something I agree with). And don't accuse me of writing POV articles, for I have ensured that they are stated as claims and opinions, rather than matters of fact, attribution is provided where required, and have provided other information such the opinions of Yabloko and Edward Lucas. There is an inherrent difference here. And your Freedom in the World (report) is absolutely irrelevant also. Just have the nouse to admit that it is a notable term, and you don't like it. Wikipedia is not censored, and has to portray realities as they exist in the world in a neutral fashion. AfD is not an avenue for a content dispute, so if you don't believe the article is WP:NPOV, then WP:SOFIXIT --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly why this is soapboxing because you have only included "that some hold the opinion that Estonia is a fascist state" but excluded opposing viewpoints that say exact opposite available in the same sources that you have used. You're not only excluding the opposing sources but claim that Freedom in the World (report) is absolutely irrelevant. There is one thing you're right on though, I don't like this new WP:BATTLEGROUND you have created on Wikipedia.---Termer (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a battleground, it's an article on a notable term which is used in the real world, and has been quite widely used. It's fine to sit back and bitch about the article, but it is another thing to actually WP:SOFIXIT, which is something you have not done, except for slapping an NPOV tag on the article and placing a section Background with a link to the irrelevant Freedom in the World (report) article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you don't read the talk page, as I've clearly said there is no point to fix an article that is listed for an AfD. And not to worry, in case it's not going to be deleted, fix is going to happen. Perhaps you're not simply aware of the alternative viewpoints and therefore you have left those out, and have misinterpreted many facts in the article, and have inserted some statements that are simply not true. So I can promise you're going to find out shortly in case this can of worms stays open.--Termer (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the talk page, and all I see is gaming of policies and the like, claiming OR, when it is obvious that everything is sourced, and coatrack which again is rubbish, as the article deals completely with the term, and the term only. And I must say that it's my opinion that it's pretty ridiculous not to even attempt to fix an article on a notable subject in the hope that it will be deleted, simply because you don't like it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it, do you? What I don't like is you using Wikipedia to make a POINT here by creating an article in response to Putinjugend. Regarding "eSStonia" by itself than I'm more on the same page with CharlotteWebb. I take "eSStonia" like a ridiculous joke, and I always do like jokes, just that I don't think such a soapboxing joke has has any encyclopedic value to it. And again, in case the Afd outcome sees it differently and the article is not going to be deleted, I'll fix it and list the facts in the article that you have left out. I just don't want to take any chanses and work on something that might end up in a garbage bin anyway.--Termer (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bakharev and Beatle Fab Four. You may notice that pretty same people arguing against each other in all these Afds. I wonder how they would argue (keep or delete) if all these pejoratives or slang terms were put for deletion in bulk. Yes I know it is not possible, as there can be not bargaining in WP such as you let me delete this and I will let you delete that. Yet I am curious. (Igny (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Seems referenced as a notable political slogan.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to satiric misspelling which covers this sort of humor. — CharlotteWebb 03:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As per Alex Bakharev's statement. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• More on notability The term has also seen exposure by the BBC [6], except they have spelt it эс-эс-тония, which is spelt the way it is spoken, rather than the more prevalent эSSтония. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case this can of worms stays open, what's next? an article or a list like Russian smear campaigns? After all the term has 261 returns in google and 3 in google books. Looks like much more notable term than "eSStonia" that by itself would fit right into the main article along with many other subchapters. So perhaps it would be better to keep and expand this article indeed so that all relevant smear campaigns could be listed in a central article?--Termer (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Propaganda in Russia, a subcategory of Category:Propaganda and Category:Russian politics as well as Category:Propaganda by country? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Propaganda in Russia is a notable topic, and is an NPOV title for Russian smear campaigns, which by the way, your book references are from 1963, 1972 and 1972 respectively, which is not Russia but the Soviet Union. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete/redirect to Anti-Estonian sentiment. The article has virtually no independent content. Russavia simply digs more and more newsrefs which merely mention the term, with no additional encyclopedic content (which is none, just a dicdef mixed with a bunch of usage cases and info related to Bronze Soldier topic rather than to the word). - 7-bubёn >t 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can one say it has virtually no independent content? We have sources from the Baltic Times, The Economist (x2), Moskovskiy Komsomolets, Defense Technical Information Center, KM.ru, Rosbalt, Kommersant, Novaya Gazeta, Baltic Business News, and Komsomolskaya Pravda (re: cost of boycott). The only primary source is one from Komsomolskaya Pravda, which is then backed up by the Baltic Times and Baltic Business News sources; and then one source from Nashi, which is used to source Nashi also evoked the term when they accused the Estonian state of cultivating fascism, by removing the Bronze Soldier memorial, the unsolved murder of Dmitry Ganin on Bronze Night, the arrest and detention of Mark Siryk by the Kaitsepolitseiamet on Bronze Night, and a memorial to the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) being built. The rest of the article, as shown, is sourced to independent sources, and the BBC Russian source which you removed also lends more independent sourcing, if one wants to claim that the Moskovskiy Komsomolets is a primary source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• this is nothing but someone used the term for some reason. Nothing beyond dictionary definition. - 7-bubёn >t 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Step right up folks, get your tickets here, the Grand Re-Opening of Putinland is only days away. We at Putinland look forward to you being our guest in our wonderous 17 million sq km theme park. Choose from one of our many fine accommodation houses, such as the five star Lubyanka Hilton, the 3 1/2 star Lefortovo Holiday Inn, and for those on a budget, you can't go wrong with the historic Moscow Serbsky Youth Hostel. We do apologise in advance, our self-contained apartments are undergoing major renovations and are not fit for our guests. There is plenty for you and your family to do whilst in Putinland. Enjoy a relaxing evening at the theatre! Child care facilities are available for those with children. SPECIAL FOR THE OPENING MONTH. Every guest will enjoy a 10 minute phone call to the Managing Director of Putinland. Your stay at Putinland will be electrifying, so much so that you may not want to ever leave. For those of you on an extremely limited budget, you may want to try the alternative theme park; it's not as popular as Putinland, in no small part to the lack of management experience by its managing director, so much so that he sold all of the park's attractions to a foreign theme park. But don't despair, they have a freak show with the main attraction, "Is it a woman, man or beast. You tell us" (there's not a chance in hell I am gonna wikilink that). Looking forward to seeing this in mainspace soon. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reverted edit of Russavia: Russavia, if you want something to say about the coming article by Marting, say it straight, without tricks. Wikipedia is not a game zone. Regardiung Putinjugend, if you don't like the article, please write Pro-Putin youth movements or something, instead of complaining. If someone wants to turn wikipedia into political battle, you are not helping to prevent this. - 7-bubёn >t 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SemBubenny You have no sense of humour. Sorry if I mistook WP for a theme park, but I didn't realise it was a Gulag either. Oh wait, that's User:Martintg/Putinland - a theme park and Gulag rolled into one. Anyone with a sense of humour can see it here. And thanks for the barnstar Termer, we needn't be at each others throats all the time, humour is good for the soul. SemBubenny, please take note. Also, this has nothing to do with the existence of Putinjugend or Phone Call to Putin, or anything else in terms of "revenge articles" -- it does have something to do with them in the sense that those, and many other AfDs, hell Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hui Voine! even closed as a keep, so don't say that I have turned anything into a political battle, we have shitloads of propaganda terms used against Russia on WP, but this may be one of the first Russian terms directed towards parties outside of Russia, and that's what people don't like.--Russavia ^Dialogue 06:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC) --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't slide from jokes into insults and review the article Godwin's law (re: your mention of gulag). Please be advised that people over the globe have very different undetrstanding of humor, and I had quite sad experience here. - 7-bubёn >t 06:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-instated my previous post, it is light-hearted, and if you had a bad experience somewhere, I'm sorry for that, but Wikipedia is not censored, and even your position as an admin does not give you the authority to go around censoring discussions (and dare I say it, deleting files without discussion), when it is obvious it is humour; if it's not to your tastes, then skip paste it. There was no attacking of any editors, and there was no WP:BLP. We are not here on WP as one big group of single-minded clones, but as individuals, and individuals will bring with them knowledge, and their own style. You say WP is not a game zone, I say that WP is supposed to be fun, not so mind-numbingly boring that we have to be careful what we say because an overbearing admin may take issue with something that is said for which no offence was intended, nor received as by other editors. People around the globe may have different understanding of humour, but this does not mean that I or anyone has to conform with your standards, nor does it mean that you have to conform with ours. I thought it was the melting pot that was what was supposed to make WP a good thing. So again in short, don't censor other's words simply because you don't like it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENSORED is applicable to article space. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for free speech: it is an environmernt for creating encyclopedia. Wikipedia is very much censored in discussions. If you persist, you may be blocked for your jokes which are nothing but attack of other editors, and hence a disruption of wikipedia. - 7-bubёn >t 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete/redirect to Anti-Estonian sentiment with additional info added to that article. As per other arguments. I also strongly feel that the Putinjugend article ought to be deleted and moved into a section under Nashi. ESStonia seems to merely be a popular, widely used slur against Estonia just as Putinjugend seems to be popular, widely used slur against pro-Kremlin youth groups. The history and usage of each of these terms seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the respective articles but not enough to deserve their own article in my opinion.Faustian (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: putinjugend. This was suggested several times in this page for those who don't like it. Yet some prefer play insulted Russia: Less work, more political fun. - 7-bubёn >t 06:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nomination. What is the encyclopaedic value of this article? Very little I belive. An anti-Estonian slur does not warrant an article, a mere passage would suffise. --Hillock65 (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing that would indicate notability in the encyclopedic sense. JBsupreme (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Sockpuppet I have filed this report over what I believe is a case of sockpuppeting in this AfD by an editor. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:AGF in you is waning, young padawan. There's no puppetry. It is my vote, because I originally believed the article could become encyclopædic. I forgot to log in, but I didn't bother when I recalled that AFDs aren't votes, and I believed my argument would stand on its own.

Over time, I realised that the article is hopeless, so I changed my vote. In order to avoid double voting, I -- naturally -- removed my original vote when casting a new one. It's the standard protocol for vote changes, after all.

Your puppetry claims might have some merit if I hadn't deleted the original vote. But as you can clearly see, that is not the case here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a case of a possible Good Faith tragically missing here. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Digwuren. Unfortunately, it does not appear it is a 'tragic mistake', the only tragic thing is that Digwuren was caught. He made out other users were responsible, and it is obvious from Martintg's own words that even he did not know it was Digwuren. All the evidence is now there. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're searching for those elusive straws to beat me over with, you might as well claim that calling my own address "disgruntled IP" once I became disgruntled with my initial vote constituted a vicious attack on myself, and a flagrant violation of WP:NSA. How about that? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:37, 27 January 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.