Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of Vladimir Putin


 * 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. clear consensus. Intrinsically POV title and unnecessary POV split.  DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Demonization of Vladimir Putin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Over the top highly POV piece of non-encyclopedic original research which relies on synthesis of sources. Also a WP:COATRACK created to make a political WP:POINT as part of some propaganda war. Yes, there are some (dubious) sources which talk about "demonization of Putin" in passing (some blogs and opinion pieces) but there are no sources dedicated to that as a topic. Frankly, the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Although, it's so crazy it's actually sort of funny.  Volunteer Marek  06:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am creator of this article. It should be kept because:
 * Topic : This topic is notable. It is covered by multiple reliable sources. Many of them extensively discussing the topic.
 * Blog : Yes, one of them is blog of Stephen F. Cohen, an american scholar who is specialized at Russian studies and professor of university in New York. His blog is published on the Reuters website and extensively republished by plenty of other very reliable publishers.
 * Issues? : If there are some issues with this article, they are far from being that serious as emphasized by nominator for deletion who presented no evidence for very serious (POINT, COATRACK, OR, SYNTH...) accusations which I think are not justified at all. No article at wikipedia is perfect. If they are to be deleted because of that, wikipedia would not exist. Any issues this article might have should be resolved without deletion of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 25.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 06:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (First part copied from article talk) The article relies on primary source editorials and cherry picked opinion pieces. Thus it collects, and synthesizes primary sources to arrive at a conclusion. Look, just because someone somewhere said that someone else somewhere "demonized" Putin does not a source, or an article make. Especially if we're talking highly politized sources. Every politician is critized by someone. And that someone is critized by someone else. You could write hundreds of these ridiculous articles: Demonization of Barack Obama, Demonization of George Bush, Demonization of Osama Bin Laden, Demonization of George Soros, Demonization of Jimbo Wales, Demonization of Mother Theresa, Demonization of Slobodan Milosevic (oh wait...), Demonization of Hitler, Demonization of Stalin, Demonization of Pol Pot, Demonization of Satan, Demonization of Santa Claus, Demonizations of Wikipedia, Demonizations of Hollywood, ... ...... I am sure there is some primary sources some where for all of these.  Volunteer Marek   07:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that majority of your comment is appeal to ridicule fallacy which I see as sign of absence of real arguments for your point of view here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's possible to both mock something and make a serious point at the same time.  Volunteer Marek  18:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Purge, or send to the Gulag. G10, tagged as such. Vlad is not pleased. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: speedy deletion declined. Whether or not it is SYNTH or COATRACK, G10 would only apply if this page served no purpose but to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass" Putin, and that is not the case. JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Purge, per WP:TE, POVFORK, OR, UNDUE etc. etc.--Galassi (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete not a valid encyclopedic topic. Inherently POV. --Melody Lavender 11:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Demonizing the enemy. Delete or rename to Putler and rewrite per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge if possible, delete if not to Vladimir Putin's article what can be salvaged with no original research, sourcing, and the like. If this is not possible, delete the article. As Volunteer Marek has stated, you could make an infinite bunch of articles relating to the 'demonization' of something. I'm not even sure an article title change could encompass it but it's a biased title regardless. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not infinite. Only on demonization which meets notablity criteria (covered by multiple reliable sources), like Demonization of United States or Demonization of Vladimir Putin.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that Demonization of US article you just created, probably should be AfD as well.  Volunteer Marek  21:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is fun! Demonization of United States is obviously an example of WP:POINT and a POV fork of Anti-Americanism. Now, speaking more seriously, something like Image of Vladimir Putin in press might be a legitimate subject . we have already Public image of Vladimir Putin (per Viriditas below). My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Anti-American propaganda campaign ≠ Anti-American sentiment and stereotypes. There are tons of reliable sources for Demonization of America as propaganda campaign, so its notable topic which deserves its own article. Same as this topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , changing of your comment after it was already replied like you did here (diff) is not allowed on wikipedia. Please revert yourself. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is perfectly allowed (I strike through part of my previous comment). I did it because I listen arguments by other participants of this discussion. But thank you! I almost fell asleep editing Wikipedia lately. I think you have excellent sense of humor by creating these "demonization" pages. But they belong to Humor. My very best wishes (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No doubt you know you did more than strike trough part of your previous comment with this edit (diff).
 * No doubt you also know that your comment about me and my senses are violation of WP:NPA.
 * Re humor, if you had good arguments for your position there would be no need for you to violate wikipedia rules and use fallacies in attempt to advance your position.
 * I agree with you in one thing. Either all articles about demonization should be deleted or none of them. So its now about Demonizing the enemy, Demonization of United States and Demonization of Vladimir Putin. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, striked through. Sorry, but I do not agree with you in "one thing". Please see Other stuff exists. Moreover, creating several questionable pages on the same subject, and then arguing on the AfD that all of them should therefore be kept is an example of WP:POINT. That is forbidden. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you avoid to put your money where your mouth is? You stated that articles on demonization are "questionable pages", " an example of WP:POINT and a POV fork " that "belong to Humor". Why do you mind expanding this AfD to include other article on demonization? I promise I will strike trough my keep !vote and change it into delete as soon as you convince me with arguments based on wikipedia policies. Not fallacies, personal attacks and violations of wikipedia rules. Until now I haven't seen such arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I do not mind expanding this AfD to include other article on demonization, but this not my responsibility. However, even if other articles on demonization are kept, it does not mean we must keep this article. This is meaning of Other stuff exists.My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article badly needs an English language grammatical makeover, but its concept is well justified.  Consider that it includes extremely mainstream observations that this well documented phenomenon seriously hazards world peace.  Greater notability is hard to imagine.  Because of the repercussions thus explicated, the article deserves independent footing (but serious grammatical attention).  Kenfree (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - and salt. This is mostly a collection of sources that have almost nothing to do with the article. Pure original research and synthesis based on fringe theories. Dave Dial (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic topic backed by reliable sources. The word "demonization" is the actual word used by sources, so the title is appropriate. USchick (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to Public image of Vladimir Putin and/or an article about Putin conspiracy theories or Russia–United States relations, then delete. Current version is not adequate to keep. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Public image ≠ propaganda campaign. Both are notable subjects covered by multiple reliable sources and deserve their own articles. If you found more reliable sources that this propaganda campaign does not exist, it can be clarified in the text of the article, besides sources that already say so. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Public image and propaganda are inseparable. They are one and the same. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a personal opinion or is there a source to back up this statement? USchick (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A personal opinion about what? Propaganda "is the key instrument in the construction" of the public image of a leader and the public's perception of that leader and the office held by that leader. (Shawn J. Parry-Giles, 2002). Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You just proved they are not "one and same".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Intrinsically POV topic, so it cannot be rescued. There may be a Criticism of Vladimir Putin (say) article that can include some of these sources in a sub-topic, but this is clearly not a valid topic. -- cyclopia speak! 16:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A topic can be notable or not notable. Any notable topic is valid.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not any topic is valid. The topic, as formulated, assumes that the criticism of P. was unfair (meaning the subject was a "victim" of unfair propaganda - "demonization", rather than of their own actions). Therefore, the topic is intrinsically POV, and this page not a valid encyclopedic content. Topic like "public image of ..." would be OK, but we have it already.My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say "any topic is valid". Please don't interpret my position. I clearly said "Any notable topic is valid". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is wrong, as WP:GNG states: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not. In this case the topic blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Mind you, I am an inclusionist, I think three times before deeming something not worthy an article. But this is a clear cut case of WP:SOAP. There is info in the article that might be saved, but not under this title, not under this topic. Russophobia is a possible valid target. -- cyclopia speak! 18:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your explanation . I think only people can have point of view. Not topics. How can a "topic blatantly violate WP:NPOV"? Regarding Russophobia point, Putin ≠ Russia per below explanation.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try with a silly simple example. If someone made an article titled Cyclopia is the best Wikipedia editor, wouldn't the topic title itself be violating NPOV? -- cyclopia speak! 16:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Topic ≠ title. You first stated that the "topic blatantly violate WP:NPOV", now you point to the title ("wouldn't the topic title itself be violating NPOV?"). Can you please clarify your opinion here and what exactly you think violates NPOV policy, the topic or its title?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They are one and the same: the title defines the topic. -- cyclopia speak! 18:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you (also) just proved they are not "one and same", though your "=" proclamation probably pointed to the main point to which somehow this discussion boiled down to. It is = or ≠ position. There are two groups of editors:
 * One group of editors (larger) believe that demonization=public image, criticism, Russophobia.... or that demonization is some kind of taboo "POV topic" so this article should be either deleted or merged into public image, criticism, Russophobia.... articles
 * Another group of editors (smaller for now) think that demonization≠public image, criticism, Russophobia....
 * I respect opinion of editors belonging to group number 1 but I think nobody presented valid arguments for it. If criticism/russophobia/public image.... would have characteristics of demonization, they would be demonization. Similar to "silly simple example" about grandma and grandpa Mr. Putin recently told. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment I agree with User:My very best wishes. Also, this would be more appropriate for a redirect or merge. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment (1) There is no question that Putin is demonized by the Western media, indeed, to a ridiculously hysterical degree. (2) That does not mean that Wikipedia needs this article or that this subject is appropriate for an encyclopedia. My personal view is that an article dealing with "Western anti-Russian propaganda" would be more encyclopedic; the demonization of Putin could be treated there. (3) I think that Antidiskriminator has a point when he says above that "Either all articles about demonization should be deleted or none of them. So its now about Demonizing the enemy, Demonization of United States and Demonization of Vladimir Putin." (4) It is par for the course that of the three "demonization" articles that Antidiskriminator created, only in the case of the Putin article has a deletion discussion been started. This is so even though the subject "Demonization of the United States" duplicates two existing articles, Criticism of the United States government and Anti-Americanism. As far as I know, the Demonization of Putin article doesn't duplicate any existing articles, so a much better case can be made for deleting the Demonization of the US article than deleting the Demonization of Putin article. Yet there is a discussion for deleting the latter, but not for deleting the former. – Herzen (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Russian equivalent of Anti-Americanism is Russophobia. I was pleased to find that an article about that subject already exists. Russophobia is the product of anti-Russian propaganda, so a separate article about anti-Russian propaganda is not required. In my opinion, material about the demonization of Putin should go in the Russophobia article, not a separate article. – Herzen (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I think that your position, similar to position of several other editors who !voted for rename/merge, is based on the (I believe false) premise that demonization is actually (well deserved) "Criticism" or "Russophobia" or "Public image" or "....propaganda".... If criticism/russophobia/public image.... would have characteristics of demonization, they would be demonization. No doubt that numerous scholars and politicians whose works emphasize term demonization know the characteristics and differences between demonization and Criticism, Russophobia, Public image, ... Still, they decided to use word demonization. In case of your proposal Herzen there is additional problem because it is based on misidentification of Putin with Russia. No doubt that Putin ≠ Russia and also there is no doubt there are people who demonize Putin but have nothing against Russia. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong delete – Nothing but a WP:COATRACK, a PoV nonsense article that has no encyclopaedic value. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge & Delete, merge content that is reliably sourced (and make it neutrally worded) to the article Public image of Vladimir Putin, where this can be seen as a POVFORK of content that falls within the scope of that article, and delete this article. While negative reliably sourced content can be found of Vladimir Putin, that falls within the public image of the subject, and the title of this article creates POV issues. Therefore, it be best to take what reliable sources are in this article, and use them to improve the target article, and delete this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Public image of Vladimir Putin, add "demonization"-section.--Z oupan 01:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Public Image of Putin. Otherwise we will have a new trend of creating these types of articles, very soon we may have Demonization of Obama, it will be larger too. Noteswork (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what if we may have (larger) article on Demonization of Obama? Is demonization some kind of taboo? If it is, what wikipedia policy says so? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any "Demonization of X" is POV. The wording basically implies that most criticism of X is wrong almost by definition, and part of some conspiracy to ruin X image. Unless this has been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians (e.g. a Demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany could make some sense), we cannot accept such wording for a topic. "Public image of X" or "Criticism of X" are neutral topics, where content about demonization critiques could make sense. But "Demonization of X" is not. -- cyclopia speak! 11:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still expect to reply to my questions.
 * , has it "been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians" that Demonization of Putin is POV? Of course not. This kind of argument is not grounded in wikipedia policies nor in common sense. Scholars are rarely able to prove something "unequivocally and consensually", especially when dealing with (modern) human societies. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are turning this upside-down. Calling criticism "demonization" is a POV unless proven otherwise. And yes, it is grounded in WP policy: WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, for a start.-- cyclopia speak! 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. Editors who insist that "demonization=criticism or PI" should prove it. Calling demonization "criticism" is POV "unless proven otherwise". --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Criticism" and "demonization" are interchangeable. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Has it "been proven unequivocally and consensually by historians" that Demonization of Vladimir Putin is actually criticism? No. Unlike I don't insist on scholarly consensus, but editors who !voted for deletion based on demonization=criticism or demonization=PI position should present some kind of proof for their assertion. Otherwise their votes would remain Proof by assertion or Argumentum ad nauseam.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Demonization is not even a neutral term. Reliable sources often consider subject to be a "Drama queen", "Drug addict". They aren't accepted. Noteswork (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is an entirely pov article, full of OR and Synthesis. I've never seen so many "some authors" in one article! Some of the non-"some authors", non-pov content might be placeable into Public image of Vladimir Putin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No idea which came first, but this is essentially a POV fork of Public image of Vladimir Putin. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete In his speeches and his supporters’ ones broadcast through the Russian media, Putin himself demonizes himself by announcing the threat of military forces and nuclear cruise missiles when going in constant search of troubles to Russia in Transnistria in 1990, South Ossetia in 2008, Donbass in 2014, etc. The Western media reflect his policy. Psychiatrick (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Public image of Vladimir Putin. This title is inherently POV, merge together with other comments for a balanced article.  --Obsidi (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.