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. There's clear consensus not to keep this as a stand alone article, but opinion is split on whether to turn it into a dab page or just delete it completely. I'm going to go ahead and delete it, but if anybody wants to recreate the title as a dab page, that's fine. If you want the old text to work from, ping me and I can userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zakazukha[edit]

Zakazukha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dicdef plus examples of a Russian slang word with nearly no independent usage in English. In fact, the article is incorrect: The Russian term refers to various ethically questionable acts done upon order (zakaz): contract murder, lobbying, politically-motivated actions, paid media coverage (not only for praise as the current article claims, but for smear as well), etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Advertorial. Book source cover this topic, which in my opinion is essentially a term, rather than a simple dictionary definition. However, the overall depth of coverage about the topic may not quite warrant a standalone article. The Advertorial article has no mention of the occurrence of zakazukha in Russia, and a merge is a functional alternative to deletion as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (Struck my !vote above. See below in the discussion for my revised !vote.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Advertorial is an advert editorial. Zakazukha is anything: anything published, anything else questionable (hence derogatory gist of the term) performed upon order. However after reading "advertorial", I see it covers things which are similar topics but named differently in different countries: cash for comment (Australia), paid news (India), so "Russia" section will fit well. And its lede must be slightly rewritten to broaden the topic to cover all sneaky advertising.
• Therefore the proper solution would be Merge/Disambig, with disambig being:

• Zakazukha is a Russian-language informal term which may refer to: Advertorial/Paid propaganda (missing article)^[1]/Contract murder/Lobbying/Reverse lobbying?? - the latter term I invented because I do not know the English term where politicians press businesses and other organizations to do something to further some political goals. Is this concept recognized? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I am still leaning to deletion, because this term is very rarely used in English and always with dicdef-explanation, ie., it is just an embellishment with Russian flavor, not an independent word of English. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Staszek Lem: Note that this source states, "these are called advertorials in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Advertorial or Merge/Disamb as proposed above Delete -- no strong secondary sources for this. Those in the article are just WP:OR. I will note that there is a company with that name from Google search. If secondary sources are provided, feel free to ping me with them. I would not even support a merge unless I see something definitive. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [revised --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)][revised 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]

• @David Tornheim: Check out: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Note that this source states, "these are called advertorials in English", hence my merge !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 Thanks. I have changed my vote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, How did you find those? I didn't see them in the Google search, but maybe I didn't look deep enough. Or did you use Google Scholar or some other search engine? --David Tornheim (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: From the Google Books link atop in the Find sources search template. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my explanation at all? Of course, these [i.e., things called "zakazukha" in particular source] are called "advertorials". But there are other^[1] meanings of the word. Hence my suggestion of disambig. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Perhaps I'm missing something, but the source you provided (p. 119, p. 120) has no mention of the term referring to contract murder, lobbying or reverse lobbying at all. Nor do any of the sources I posted above. As such, I feel that a disambiguation page using the terms you posit above would be entirely inaccurate, and not based upon what reliable sources state at all. Sorry, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: At present, I agree with Northamerica1000. I see no evidence of the alternate definition. Is this based on your own knowledge as a Russian speaker? If so, I understand how it might be annoying arguing with someone like me who has very little knowledge of the Russian language, and I am not going to disagree with your own experience of the language and use of the term being superior to mine. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to delete the disamb option if it is to include a definition not found in the secondary WP:RS based on our sourcing rules. We can't rely on personal knowledge for an alternate definition.

Right now I am increasingly inclined for keep based on North's sources. Why? This is where I tend to agree more with Stasek: I know a fair amount of German and watch many diverse foreign language films with subtitles. I have studied quite a bit of literature, including major works originally written in a foreign language translated into English, where volumes of text are written about the importance of translation, the difficulty of translating a poem, and major emphasis on the importance and difficulty of translating particular words that have no equivalent in English. My overall feeling is that most (or nearly all) words have not exact equivalent (in a foreign language) or even an exact synonym. The simple fact that they are pronounced differently and have a different history slightly changes their meaning and the feeling about them to the listener. Each word has its unique existence in terms of connotations and denotations. So, a direct link to advertorial may overstate its similarity to advertorial (as mentioned by Stasez). But at present it does seem like the RS seems to equate the two.

A last question is whether we really need a term like this. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary, and my sense what this article is providing is a dictionary definition. That makes me incline towards delete. I might have to see if I can find reference to this in the WP:PAG. Any thoughts on this issue? --David Tornheim (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I see no evidence - there is another one ("paid propaganda") in the ref I provided (twice). Also, you can find more in Russian sources. 18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Look up заказуха in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

@Northamerica1000: contract murder is easily googled in russian dictionaries, even in wiktionary. So we have three verifiable meanings, enough for disambig. In fact, the meaning "contract murder" is historically the first one. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And here is the fourth meaning I called "reverse lobbying" - " действия по заказу неких политических сил." ("actions upon an order of certain political forces") Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And the award-winning book Zakazukha by a reasonably notable writer Oleg Dudintzev [7]. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• And a yet another meaning : collection of kompromat upon an order. [8] Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate and merge when functional. (I have struck my initial !vote above). Thanks Staszek Lem for the additional information. The only term I'm hesitant about is "Reverse lobbying", as 1) there is no article for this, and 2) it can likely be covered as a disambiguation to lobbying. Also, Staszek Lem, you stated "But I am still leaning to deletion" in a comment above. Would you be willing to modify this stance per the additional information you have provided just above? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning to agree with this based on the recent sources provided by Staszek Lem, which I have not had a chance to review. I am curious what your thoughts are on why we would need an entry that functions more like a dictionary than an encyclopedia? Staszek had not answered that question either. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was leaning to delete this page, but after some thought I suggested to make it a disambig page. In order to have this, we have the term used in the pages we disambiguate to. We can easily have it in Advertorial#Russia. This term may also be squeezed into Zakazukha. I can quickly write a stub for Oleg Dudintzev, so we have 3 pages for dab. Later one may easily write Contract killing in Russia (search: Заказные убийства): there is info about their surge in 1990s of "wild capitalism" in Russia, with gradual decline when mafia-style business of Russian oligarchs proceeded to legalization.

In other words, it makes sense to disambig to Russia-specific topics. We already have weird (IMO) pages kompromat, maskirovka, etc. for concepts which exist in the wider world, but somehow without one-word English term. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: Please see my comment below about my concern that a disamb page would act as little more than a translation. If Zakazukha (as advertorial) turns about to be notable Russia-specific variation (which I think it is), then I would prefer that there is either a full article or a subheading in an existing article that describes that uniqueness. I would not support redirects or disamb if there is there is no subheading for unique use of the term at the destination. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question (especially to Staszek Lem and Northamerica1000) How do you address WP:NOT#DICTIONARY? Is there something more to the reason to keep that goes beyond it being a dictionary definition? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles such as The Anatomy of Zakazukha, which appears to be centered around the topic, suggests that this is more of a term than a simple definition. It's a a snippet view, so can't access the entire article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are saying that the activity described by the term is what is notable rather than the term itself? If there is something unique (and notable) about the activity, then I think that justifies an article (or subheading in an existing article). I believe that is the case based on the WP:RS so far provided. The uniqueness may be also related to where the term is used.

The disamb page with the various definitions seems to me too much like a dictionary entry, and what's worse it is for a foreign term, making it like a translation page. I don't see a need to have translation redirects for every foreign language word to every English article--foreign language have their own Wikipedias for that. As an example, the German word for table (Tisch) does not have a redirect to Table. Does that make sense? Maybe we really need some WP:PAG to talk about this kind of issue about foreign words. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Useless. I dont see any reason why this article exist in the first place. It is like a small section in Bribery --Jay (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject does not possess evident and independent notability. (Compare with "Baksheesh".) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -The Gnome (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2018 (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.