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. However, it is accepted that the article has quite a few issues, and it may well be renominated here before long should they not be resolved. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putinland[edit]

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

The article as written by Martintg has a major problem. These problems include:

1. The documentary article and the Polish article only mention Putinland in their title. According to Martintg, as on eSStonia, this is not valid for inclusion into an article, and hence they have been removed.
2. The lead states that it came into being after the death of Litvinenko. He didn't die until November 2006. Both of the remaining two sources pre-date his death.
3. I've removed "who exposed the brutality of the Kremlin's war in Chechnya" as it is a word for word copyvio of the source.
4. The Edward Lucas article mentions the term in the title only. The source provided is a subscription service, so Martintg needs to provide a direct quotation from the text of the article, otherwise the entire Lucas section needs to be removed as per the other two sources.
5. The assertion "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics." is POV original research on the part of Martintg by the looks of it. Even if it can be sourced, its still POV, due to FSB involvement only being alleged in a number of conspiracy theory by different kooks, this goes to show that this is a point article.
6. Then we have have it appeared after the murder of Politkovskaya. This needs a citation, otherwise that too is original research, because the only source left which actually references Putinland in the article is a direct quotation to Politkovskaya herself, which to point out the bleeding obvious, she isn't able to write from the grave, or is she?

As it stands, this is a WP:POINT article in relation to the AfD for eSStonia, in which Martintg was directly asked if he would create Putinland. Sorry Martin, I would prefer for this article to stay, but there is no assertion of notability in the article which is referenced to reliable sources, so instead of prodding it only to have it removed, I think its best to bring it here instead for discussion, and see if notability can be established. I can find no relevant book or scholar results in Google, I also can find no really relevant news sources, for which the majority of results are for "Put inland", and even one for "Putin's land grab". The rest seem to use Putinland as a substitute for Russia. I can't find any notability with this term. Russavia ^Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 21:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A question. This is very strange. That was actually Russavia who requested to create this "Putinland" article. But the same Russavia nominated it for deletion. Any explanations?Biophys (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martintg/Putinland started according to my timestamps at 08:29, 27 January 2009. Timestamp of my post on Termer's talk page; 10:06, 27 January 2009. Don't you think I knew it was already under development? And one can tell I was being facetious, particularly with my suggestion of "Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- this can be a laundry list of Soviet war memorials where someone has referred to it as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- to make it easier, find a list of Soviet war memorials and just replicate that information here on WP." And I even included a suggestion for you, Biophys. Now please don't feign ignorance to usage of the English language, and try to suggest that I suggested it's creation, when it was already well under way. Over and out. That's all for me on this AfD, unless actually required. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability is established by multiple references to the independent reliable sources including a film documentary. Judging from the discussion on Putinjugend and eSStonia, I've come round to the view that notability threshold for the politically loaded neologisms seems to be quite low nowadays and should be kept. As long as these articles are written in an encyclopedic manner, I have no objection to their existance.Martintg (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are you copy-pasting from keep votes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESStonia? I wonder why. Don't you have your own opinion? (Igny (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

?? As I explained, despite my intial opposition, I've come round to the view that these articles are worth keeping. Martintg (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are arguing for keeping all these articles now simply because your delete opinion about esstonia failed to delete that article, you can not do anything about that anymore. So no, your delete opinion about esstonia did not change a jota. By "changing your opinions" you are trying to keep this article now. On the other hand, the count in this Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3 so you do not mind if all articles stay. You can lie about change in your opinion as much as you can, but as soon as another anti-Estonian article is created, you will change it back to delete again. After all all you need is to maintain your keep opinion for duration of this Afd only, in the next Afd for eSStonia you can always change it back. So again no, your view hasn't changed a bit.(Igny (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Watch it, editor. You're in violation of WP:BATTLE. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of editors here, including you, who are engaged in this "Battle". Don't you all realize that? The fact that you are trying behind policies and guidelines, does not change that.(Igny (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Russia-Estonia wiki-war is currently 1:3" ?? I'm from Australia. As for the AfDs on the other articles, I know two or three Estonian editors voted but they were split between "keep" and "delete"; the majority didn't vote at all. Their votes represented a tiny fraction of the total AfD votes, so it made no difference at all. Your characterisations are totally wrong and border on WP:NPA, but your response does reveal more about yourself than anything else. Martintg (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all these conflict articles into one big article on political pejorative neologisms. Then we can provide same weight to all these "terms", and discuss article's encyclopedic worthiness without bias. If not merge, then delete them all, after all Wikipedia is not dictionary of nationalistic slang. (Igny (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I mean something like this with a lead on usage of political neologisms. (Igny (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Your example looks okay to me as it places it all in context, but ofcourse I'd like to hear the views of the other editors first. AfD's aren't required to merge articles, and if this article is kept then I wouldn't oppose such a merge if there was a resonable concensus. Re-directs are alway useful for searches. Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Igny's idea is a step forward. Having all those tiny pieces of news as separate encyclopedia articles simply doesn't make sense. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. Term not widespread enough to establish notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Little sources apart from Edward Lucas article.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been canvassed to participate here? Martintg (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. Two out of the three sources use the term in the title of the article and no where else. Just because someone uses a derogatory term to refer to a country doesn't mean we create an article about it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is more of a political neologism rather than a derogatory one, used by noted writers and professors rather than thuggish headline grabbing youth groups. And a notable one too, having found another reference here and here. No doubt I will find more. Martintg (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic. See here. If it were more notable it might be eligible for wiktionary but it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be misreading Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms. The fact of being a neologism in itself is not sufficient reason for deletion, only neologisms that are unsupported by reliable sources are candidates for deletion. This article has six sources in support, a documentary and number reports by notable people that discusses the characteristics of "Putinland". Martintg (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of this wikipedia article are reaching when they claim this neologism should be kept because it is sourced by blogs. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an english translation of the view published in his column in German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel [1]. Martintg (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then its an editoral which isn't a very good source either. Now that I look at it, most if not all the sources for this article are editorials. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials are a perfectly reliable source for statements as to the opinion of their authors, particularly when published in notable news outlets. These authors, many of them notable, are quoted in the article as to their opinion on what Putinland is. Martintg (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a suggestion. I think in one of the Eastern Europe arbitration cases it was suggested that some kind of noticeboard for EE matters/conflicts be established. I don't know if such a thing exists, but it clearly isn't working. I think we really need such a common board with a more limited task of sorting out non-encyclopedic, politically motivated stuff like eSStonia, Putinjugend etc. It would make sense finding a consensus concerning such stubs and establish a threshold on notability. Every encyclopedia would need this. Thoughts? Alternatively, if someone wants to continue setting up political battleground stubs, I'd list here long overdue Ansipism, Putin-Dobby, IlveSS,Obamajugend, Dorogoy Leonid Ilyich («Дорогой Леонид Ильич»), Näksip, Nikita Kukuruznik, all of which have at least quite a number of google hits. My vote for Putinland is delete, as it's simply non-notable. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these are silly, but some aren't. Obamajugend, for example, is a real wacky conspiracy theory. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder what do you think of my idea of establishing a noticeboard/taskforce or whatchamacallit, which would unite Russian, Baltic and other EE Wikipedians with the aim of reducing nationalist battleground attitudes? I found a Wikipedia:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board, but few people seem to use it.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The taboo policies prohibit me from discussing this in public. If you still want my thoughts, send me an email. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a great idea. I suggest setting up a subpage to decide upon standards for articles such as this. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To get the ball rolling: User:Miacek/Eastern European battleground.--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as it is encyclopædic. Without this article, Wikipedia's overview of Putinist Russia would be incomplete. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. A word in the titles is not really notable. Volodymir k (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Six sources (some of them notable people) are enough to establish notability of the subject. Lets not delete articles based on political convictions. As a side note, User:Volodymir k does almost nothing here except voting in a partisan manner in various AfDs, and he had been previously blocked indef. for voting fraud.Biophys (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One can see that this is pure WP:SYN. The original article stated "The term is intended to portray Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred, with particular reference to FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and the assassinations of prominent critics"...."The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state"...as it has been used in "various contexts" it is not a neologism for which there is a definition. Bits are added to it as Martintg finds another source which mentions the term, so that we could end up with "The term has been used in various contexts, from portraying Russia as a corrupt and murderous regime where the line between the security forces and organised crime is blurred[1] to an oil and gas powered state[2] that is ready to swat away criticism at home, squash troublesome neighbours and sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of a strong centralised state, whilst he orders hit on journalists, poisons opponents, embezzles money, molests children and eats babies for breakfast, in the presence of his new wife Alina Kabayeva." I have also raised questions here, and they have gone unanswered, although the editor in question has found time to revert revisions of mine on List of most common surnames‎. It is plain to see that the editor has simply done a Google search for Putinland, gathering sources to string them together to come up with a WP:OR/WP:SYN definition of Putinland. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible falsification of sources Why was this reinserted into the article with the comment "A 2 minute Google search will reveal a copy of the article on Lucus' blog". Why is the article sourced to europeanvoice.com? Does Martintg have access to the europeanvoice.com website? Or is it simply being referenced as a result of a google search? And he has now found the article on a blog. There are some problems here. Edward Lucas' blog is not a reliable source for information, and there is no guarantee that the article on europeanvoice.com is the same as on his personal blog. This appears to be a case of using sources which an editor has not even cited, and is a breach of WP:V. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? Lucas has a copy of his article published in europeanvoice.com on his blog site. Can we have some rational discussion rather than these weird accusations of "possible falsification of sources"? Martintg (talk) 05:18, 31 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.